Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3933 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

[former SIP citation] 

5–45–790 ..................... Standard for visible emissions ............. 3/17/10 1/26/2012 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Added. 

5–45–800 ..................... Standard for fugitive dust/emissions .... 3/17/10 1/26/2012 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Added. 

5–45–820 ..................... Compliance ........................................... 3/17/10 1/26/2012 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Added. 

5–45–830 ..................... Test methods and procedures ............. 3/17/10 1/26/2012 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Added. 

5–45–840 ..................... Monitoring ............................................. 3/17/10 1/26/2012 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Added. 

5–45–850 ..................... Notification, records and .......................

reporting ................................................

3/17/10 1/26/2012 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Added. 

*******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Documents Incorporated by Reference (9 VAC 5–20–21, Sections E.1.a.(2), (16)–(19), 

E.2.a.(3), E.2.b., E.4.a.(23)– 

(27), E.11.a.(4)–6), E.12.a.(3), 

(5) and (9)–(11)).

Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control 

Areas.

3/17/10 1/26/2012 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Added section. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1339 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0637; FRL–9622–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Oklahoma; Infrastructure 

Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving submittals 

from the State of Oklahoma pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) that 

address the infrastructure elements 

specified in the CAA, necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or standards). This action is 

being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2008–0637. All documents in the docket 

are listed at www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) Review Room 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

(214) 665–7253 to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The state submittal is also available 

for public inspection during official 

business hours, by appointment, at the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality, 707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 

1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101– 

1677. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Johnson, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–2154; fax number 

(214) 665–7263; email address: 

johnson.terry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The background for today’s action is 

discussed in detail in our November 16, 

2011, proposal (76 FR 70940). In that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

3934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

notice, we proposed to approve 

submittals from the State of Oklahoma, 

pursuant to the CAA, that address the 

infrastructure elements specified in the 

CAA section 110(a)(2), necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone, the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Those submittals are 

dated December 5, 2007, June 24, 2010, 

and April 5, 2011, respectively. We 

noted that those submittals did not 

include revisions to the SIP, but 

documented how the current Oklahoma 

SIP already included the required 

infrastructure elements. Therefore, we 

proposed to find that the following 

section 110(a)(2) elements were 

contained in the current Oklahoma SIP 

and provided the infrastructure for 

implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards: 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). In addition, we proposed to find 

that the current Oklahoma SIP satisfies 

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

infrastructure element pertaining to 

emissions from sources in Oklahoma 

not interfering with measures required 

in the SIP of any other state under part 

C of the Act to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality, with regard 

to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Our November 16, 2011, proposal 

provides a detailed description of the 

submittals and the rationale for EPA’s 

proposed actions, together with a 

discussion of the opportunity to 

comment. The public comment period 

for these actions closed on December 16, 

2011, and we did not receive any 

comments. 

II. Final Action 

We are approving the December 5, 

2007, and June 24, 2010, submittals 

provided by the State of Oklahoma as 

they demonstrate that the Oklahoma SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as set 

forth in the CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). Likewise, we are approving 

the April 5, 2011, submittal provided by 

the State of Oklahoma as it 

demonstrates that the Oklahoma SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS as set forth in the CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). This action is being taken under 

authority of section 110 of the CAA. 

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 Clean Air 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 

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 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, 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 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 26, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purpose of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: January 13, 2012. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart LL—Oklahoma 

■ 2. The first table in § 52.1920(e) 

entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the Oklahoma SIP’’ is 

amended by adding entries for 

‘‘Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ and 

‘‘Interstate transport for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ at the end to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3935 

§ 52.1920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE OKLAHOMA SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ....................... 12/5/2007 

6/24/2010 

4/5/2011 

1/26/2012 [Insert FR 

page number 

where document 

begins].

Approval for 110(a)(2)(A), (B), 

(C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), 

(J), (K), (L), and (M). 

Interstate transport for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (Noninterference with measures 

required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any other State).

Statewide ....................... 4/5/2011 1/26/2012 [Insert FR 

page number 

where document 

begins].

Approval for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

[FR Doc. 2012–1534 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 80, 

87 and 90 

[WT Docket No. 08–61; WT Docket No. 03– 

187; FCC 11–181] 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Compliance for Proposed Tower 

Registrations; Effects of 

Communications Towers on Migratory 

Birds 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) adopts a rule that affects 

the process of tower construction by 

instituting a pre-application notification 

process so that members of the public 

will have a meaningful opportunity to 

comment on the environmental effects 

of proposed antenna structures that 

require registration with the 

Commission. As an interim measure 

pending completion of a programmatic 

environmental analysis and subsequent 

rulemaking proceeding, the Commission 

also requires that an EA be prepared for 

any proposed tower over 450 feet in 

height. 

DATES: The rules in this document 

contain information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mania Baghdadi, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

2133, email Mania.Baghdadi@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Remand in WT Docket Nos. 08–61 and 

03–187, adopted December 6, 2011, and 

released December 9, 2011. The full text 

of the Order on Remand is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. It also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; the contractor’s 

Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com or by 

calling (800) 378–3160, facsimile (202) 

488–5563, or email 

FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of the 

Order on Remand also may be obtained 

via the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) by 

entering the docket numbers WT Docket 

No. 08–61 or WT Docket No. 03–187. 

Additionally, the complete item is 

available on the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.fcc.gov. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Order, the Commission takes 

procedural measures to ensure, 

consistent with its obligations under 

Federal environmental statutes, that the 

environmental effects of proposed 

communications towers, including their 

effects on migratory birds, are fully 

considered prior to construction. The 

Commission institutes a pre-application 

notification process so that members of 

the public will have a meaningful 

opportunity to comment on the 

environmental effects of proposed 

antenna structures that require 

registration with the Commission. As an 

interim measure pending completion of 

a programmatic environmental analysis 

and subsequent rulemaking proceeding, 

the Commission also requires that an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) be 

prepared for any proposed tower over 

450 feet in height. Through these 

actions and the Commission’s related 

ongoing initiatives, the Commission 

endeavors to minimize the impact of 

communications towers on migratory 

birds while preserving the ability of 

communications providers rapidly to 

offer innovative and valuable services to 

the public. 

2. The Commission’s actions in this 

Order respond to the decision of the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in American Bird 

Conservancy v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (DC 

Cir. 2008) (American Bird Conservancy). 

In American Bird Conservancy, the 

court held that the Commission’s 

current antenna structure registration 

(ASR) procedures impermissibly fail to 

offer members of the public a 

meaningful opportunity to request an 

EA for proposed towers that the 

Commission considers categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The 

notification process that the 

Commission adopts today addresses that 

holding of the court. In addition, the 

court held that the Commission must 

perform a programmatic analysis of the 

impact on migratory birds of registered 

antenna structures in the Gulf of Mexico 

region. The Commission is already 

responding to this holding by 

conducting a nationwide environmental 

assessment of the ASR program. The 

Commission has also asked the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to 

perform a conservation review of the 

ASR program under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq. 

3. The Commission’s action also 

occurs in the context of its ongoing 

rulemaking proceeding addressing the 

effects of communications towers on 

migratory birds. In 2006, the 

Commission sought comment on what 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES