Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Area, 23527-23529 [2013-09288]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Apr 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23527
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).
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
23528
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED STATUTES
Local agency
Statute No.
Statute title
ADEQ ...............
ADEQ ...............
ADEQ ...............
9–500.04 ..........
11–877 .............
49–457.01 ........
ADEQ ...............
ADEQ ...............
ADEQ ...............
49–474.01 ........
49–474.05 ........
49–474.06 ........
Air Quality Control; Definitions ..................................................................
Air Quality Control Measures ....................................................................
Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and Training; Leaf Blower Equipment Sellers; Informational Material; Outreach; Applicability.
Additional Board Duties in Vehicle Emissions Control Areas; Definitions
Dust Control; Training; Site Coordinators .................................................
Dust Control; Subcontractor Registration; Fee .........................................
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Apr 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
Adopted
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
07/02/07
07/02/07
07/02/07
05/25/12
05/25/12
05/25/12
07/02/07
07/02/07
07/02/07
05/25/12
05/25/12
05/25/12
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
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Apr 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
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: https://
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
https://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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23529
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: https://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
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23527-23529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09288]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
[[Page 23528]]
Table 1--Submitted Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Statute No. Statute title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ....................... 9-500.04................... Air Quality Control; 07/02/07 05/25/12
Definitions.
ADEQ....................... 11-877..................... Air Quality Control 07/02/07 05/25/12
Measures.
ADEQ....................... 49-457.01.................. Leaf Blower Use 07/02/07 05/25/12
Restrictions and
Training; Leaf Blower
Equipment Sellers;
Informational
Material; Outreach;
Applicability.
ADEQ....................... 49-474.01.................. Additional Board 07/02/07 05/25/12
Duties in Vehicle
Emissions Control
Areas; Definitions.
ADEQ....................... 49-474.05.................. Dust Control; 07/02/07 05/25/12
ADEQ....................... 49-474.06.................. Training; Site 07/02/07 05/25/12
Coordinators.
Dust Control;
Subcontractor
Registration; Fee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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