Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 23527 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 8, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09314 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0194; FRL– 9804–7] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan, Maricopa County 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maricopa County Area 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM10) emissions from fugitive dust 

sources. We are approving local statutes 

that regulate these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0194, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Marinaro, (415) 972–3019, 

marinaro.robert@epa.gov or Nancy 

Levin, (415) 972–3848, 

levin.nancy@epa.gov, EPA Region IX, 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What statutes did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these 

statutes? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

statutes? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating these statutes? 

B. Do the statutes meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Statutes 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What statutes did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the statutes addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted and submitted by the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

23528 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED STATUTES

Local agency Statute No. Statute title Adopted Submitted 

ADEQ ............... 9–500.04 .......... Air Quality Control; Definitions .................................................................. 07/02/07 05/25/12 

ADEQ ............... 11–877 ............. Air Quality Control Measures .................................................................... 07/02/07 05/25/12 

ADEQ ............... 49–457.01 ........ Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and Training; Leaf Blower Equipment Sellers; Informational Material; Outreach; Applicability.07/02/07 05/25/12 

ADEQ ............... 49–474.01 ........ Additional Board Duties in Vehicle Emissions Control Areas; Definitions 07/02/07 05/25/12 

ADEQ ...............

ADEQ ...............

49–474.05 ........

49–474.06 ........

Dust Control; Training; Site Coordinators .................................................

Dust Control; Subcontractor Registration; Fee .........................................

07/02/07 

07/02/07 

05/25/12 

05/25/12 

On July 20, 2012 EPA determined that 

the submittal for Maricopa County, 

Statutes: 9–500.04, 11–877, 49–457.01, 

49–474.01, 49–474.05, and 49–474.06 

met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

statutes? 

There are no previous versions of 

statutes 9–500.04, 11–877, 49–457.01, 

49–474.01, 49–474.05, and 49–474.06 in 

the SIP, although ADEQ adopted these 

statutes on July 2, 2007. ADEQ 

submitted them to us on December 21, 

2007; however, they were consequently 

withdrawn on January 25, 2011 and 

then resubmitted on May 25, 2012. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

statutes? 

PM contributes to effects that are 

harmful to human health and the 

environment, including premature 

mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment, and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 

PM emissions. 

Statute 9–500.04 requires 

municipalities to stabilize certain 

unpaved roads, alleys, and unpaved 

shoulders. Additionally, it requires the 

stabilization of parking and traffic areas 

and restricts parking and vehicle use on 

unpaved or unstabilized vacant lots. 

Statute 11–877 mandates counties to 

develop, implement, and enforce air 

quality control measures that prohibit 

any person from operating leaf blowers 

on any high pollution advisory day 

except while in vacuum mode. 

Statute 49–457.01 prohibits the use of 

leaf blowers to blow landscape debris 

into public roadways and limits their 

use to stabilized surfaces. It also 

mandates the County to produce and 

distribute materials to educate operators 

for the purpose of minimizing entrained 

dust. 

Statute 49–474.01 requires counties, 

densely populated areas, and serious 

nonattainment areas to stabilize certain 

unpaved roads, parking, and traffic 

areas. Additionally, it restricts parking 

and vehicle use on unpaved or 

unstabilized vacant lots and requires 

certified street sweepers. 

Statute 49–474.05 requires counties, 

densely populated areas, and serious 

nonattainment areas to have an air 

pollution control officer (APCO) to 

develop and implement training 

programs. Additionally, it requires an 

on-site dust control coordinator who has 

full authority to ensure implementation 

of dust control measures. 

Statute 49–474.06 requires 

subcontractors in counties, densely 

populated areas, and serious 

nonattainment areas engaging in dust 

generation operations to register with 

the APCO. The APCO may also establish 

registration fees. 

EPA’s technical support documents 

(TSD) have more information about 

these statutes. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the statutes? 

Generally, SIP measures must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability 

consistently include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; 

Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 

1987 Federal Register Notice,’’ (Blue Book), 

notice of availability published in the May 

25, 1988 Federal Register. 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious 

PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and 

Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum 

to the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 

16, 1994). 

5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 

452/R–93–008, April 1993. 

6. State of Arizona Senate Bill 1552, 

Adopted July 2, 2007. 

7. A Report of the California Legislature on 

the Potential Health and Environmental 

Impacts of Leaf Blowers, California Air 

resources Board, February 2000. 

B. Do the statutes meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these statutes are 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability and 

SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Statutes 

The TSDs describe additional 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

statutes but are not currently the basis 

for rule disapproval. This is particularly 

the case with the leaf blower statutes: 

11–877 and 49–457.01. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

statutes fulfill all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve them 

as described in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act. We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate these 

statutes into the federally enforceable 

SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 23529 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 9, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09288 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 90 

[PS Docket Nos. 13–87, 06–229; WT Docket 

No. 96–86; RM–11433, RM–11577; FCC 13– 

40] 

Service Rules Governing Public Safety 

Narrowband Operations in the 769– 

775/799–805 MHz Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on proposals to amend the 

Commission’s rules to promote 

spectrum efficiency, interoperability, 

and flexibility in 700 MHz public safety 

narrowband operations (769–775/799– 

805 MHz). By this action, the 

Commission affords interested parties 

an opportunity to submit comments on 

these proposed rule changes. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

June 18, 2013 and reply comments are 

due on or before July 18, 2013. 

ADDRESS: You may submit comments, 

identified by PS Docket No. 13–87, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Marenco, Policy and Licensing 

Division, Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau, (202) 418–0838. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 13–40, 

released on April 1, 2013. The 

document is available for download at 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. 

The complete text of this document is 

also available for inspection and 

copying during normal business hours 

in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

1. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 

13–87, the Commission initiates a new 

proceeding to seek comment on 

proposals to amend the Commission’s 

rules governing 700 MHz public safety 

narrowband operations (769–775/799– 

805 MHz). The Commission seeks 

comment on whether to extend or 

eliminate the December 31, 2016 

narrowbanding deadline for 700 MHz 

public safety narrowband licensees to 

transition from 12.5 kilohertz to 6.25 

kilohertz channel bandwidth 

technology. 

2. The Commission also seeks 

comment on a proposal from the 

National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) 

to authorize secondary use of certain 

channels in the 700 MHz band for 

public safety aircraft voice operations. 

Furthermore, the Commission seeks 

comment on additional NPSTC 

proposals to modify the rules governing 

use of the designated nationwide 

interoperability channels, data-only 

interoperability channels, reserve 

channels, and low power channels. 

3. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on a number of other issues, 

including adjacent channel power (ACP) 

limits for signal boosters, harmonizing 

power limits, certifying Project 25 

equipment and establishing a 

standardized Network Access Code 

(NAC) for operation on 700 MHz 

interoperability channels. 

4. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. All filings 

related to the NPRM should refer to PS 

Docket No. 13–87. Comments may be 

filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24,121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs. Filers should follow the 

instructions provided on the Web site 

for submitting comments. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS