34608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves establishing a special local 

regulation, requiring a permit wherein 

an analysis of the environmental impact 

of the regulations was performed. Under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h.), of the 

Instruction, an environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are not required for this 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. Add § 100.T08–0235 to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.T08–0235 Special Local Regulation; 

Monongahela River, Morgantown, WV. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

regulated area: All waters of the 

Monongahela River, from surface to 

bottom, from mile marker 101.0 

(Morgantown Highway Bridge) to mile 

marker 102.0 (Morgantown Lock and 

Dam) on the Monongahela River, 

extending the entire width of the river. 

These markings are based on the 

USACE’s Monongahela River 

Navigation Charts (Chart 1, January 

2004) using North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD 1983). 

(b) Periods of enforcement. This rule 

will only be enforced from 5:45 a.m. 

through 10 a.m. on June 26, 2011. The 

Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a 

designated representative will inform 

the public through broadcast notices to 

mariners of the enforcement period for 

the regulated area as well as any 

changes in the planned schedule. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 100.35 of 

this part, entry into this regulated area 

is prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Pittsburgh. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into, departure from, or passage through 

a regulated area must request 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

Pittsburgh or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF–FM Channel 13 or 16, or 

through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley 

at 1–800–253–7465. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Pittsburgh and 

designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard 

patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel includes 

Commissioned, Warrant, and Petty 

Officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Dated: May 9, 2011. 

R.V. Timme, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Pittsburgh. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14624 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0131, FRL–9317–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Interstate Transport 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the 

California Regional Haze Plan 

(‘‘CRHP’’), a revision to the California 

State Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’) 

addressing Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or 

‘‘Act’’) requirements and EPA’s rules for 

states to prevent and remedy future and 

existing anthropogenic impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

through a regional haze program. 

Regional haze is caused by emissions of 

air pollutants from many sources 

located over a wide geographic area. 

Also, EPA is approving certain portions 

of the CRHP and the ‘‘Interstate 

Transport State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 to 

satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State 

of California’’ (‘‘2007 Transport SIP’’), 

submitted by California on November 

16, 2007, as meeting the requirements of 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 

interference with other states’ measures 

to protect visibility for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). EPA proposed to 

approve these SIP revisions on March 

15, 2011 (76 FR 13944). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on July 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0131 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available at either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(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: Jerry 

Wamsley, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air 

Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105; via telephone at (415) 947–4111; 

or via electronic mail at 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

or ‘‘our,’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. The CAA Requirements and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule 

C. Interstate Transport Pollution and 

Visibility Requirements 

D. Our Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

produced by many sources and 

activities located across a broad 

geographic area that emit fine particles 

(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 

and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 34609 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA and after consulting with the Department of 

Interior, EPA promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and Tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

3Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and in 

some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter that impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light, thereby 

reducing the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. Also, PM2.5

can cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental impacts, such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication of water 

bodies. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs nearly all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution.1 In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

B. The CAA Requirements and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA 

Amendments of 1977, Congress created 

a program to protect visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas.2 This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI) (45 FR 80084). 

These regulations represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

With the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

Congress added section 169B to address 

regional haze issues. EPA promulgated 

a rule to address regional haze on July 

1, 1999, the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

(64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the 

existing visibility regulations to 

integrate provisions addressing regional 

haze impairment and to establish a 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

plan revision to the SIP applies to all 50 

states, the District of Columbia and the 

Virgin Islands.3

For a more detailed discussion of the 

CAA and RHR requirements, please see 

sections II and III of our March 15, 2011 

proposal (76 FR 13944). Our evaluation 

of the California Regional Haze Plan can 

be found in Section IV of the same 

proposal. 

C. Interstate Transport Pollution and 

Visibility Requirements 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

PM2.5 (62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652). 

Section 110(a)(1) requires each state to 

submit a plan to address certain 

requirements for a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter time as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that such new plan 

submissions must address, as 

applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

The ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

require each state to have a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

other states in the ways contemplated in 

the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting sources 

in the state from emitting air pollutants 

in amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in any other state; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 

other state; (3) interfere with provisions 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in any other state; or, (4) 

interfere with efforts to protect visibility 

in any other state. 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

importance of addressing the long-range 

transport of pollutants for visibility and 

encourages states to work together to 

develop plans to address haze. The 

regulations explicitly require each state 

to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. Working 

together through a regional planning 

process, states are required to address 

an agreed upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 

requirements, we anticipate that 

regional haze SIPs will contain 

measures that will achieve these 

emissions reductions, and that these 

measures will meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP states 

that the Regional Haze SIP would 

address interstate regional haze impacts. 

We interpreted this to mean that 

California intended for the Regional 

Haze Plan to address the interstate 

visibility requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, 

our evaluation of the 2007 Transport SIP 

and whether it meets these CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility requirements 

relied on our evaluation of relevant 

information from the CRHP. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and our evaluation of 

how the 2007 Transport SIP and 

relevant portions of the CRHP meet 

these requirements, please see sections 

II.D and V of our March 15, 2011 

proposal (76 FR 13944). 

D. Our Proposed Action 

On March 15, 2011, EPA proposed to 

approve: (i) The California Regional 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
34610 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

4The other elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that the California SIP 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting emission 

sources within the State from emitting any air 

pollutant in amounts which will: (a) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State; 

(b) interfere with maintenance of these standards by 

any other State; and, (c) interfere with any other 

State’s measures required under Part C of the CAA 

to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. 

On March 17, 2011, we proposed to approve 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP as meeting the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(I) requirements that the 

California SIP contain adequate provisions to 

ensure that emissions from California do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment of, or 

interfere with maintenance of, the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards in other states (76 

FR 14616). 

Haze Plan (CRHP) as meeting the 

relevant requirements of CAA section 

169B and the Regional Haze Rule; and 

(ii) the 2007 Transport SIP and certain 

portions of the CRHP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

(76 FR 13944). 

Regarding our proposed approval of 

the CRHP, we proposed to find that 

California met the following Regional 

Haze Rule requirements: The State 

established baseline visibility 

conditions and reasonable progress 

goals for each of its Class I areas; the 

State developed a long-term strategy 

with enforceable measures ensuring 

reasonable progress towards meeting the 

reasonable progress goals for the first 

ten-year planning period, through 2018; 

the State adequately addressed the 

application of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology to specific stationary 

sources; the State has an adequate 

regional haze monitoring strategy; the 

State provided for consultation and 

coordination with Federal land 

managers in producing its regional haze 

plan; and, the State provided for the 

regional haze plan’s future revisions. 

Regarding our proposed approval of 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP, we 

proposed to find that the following 

specific elements of the CRHP satisfied 

the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirement to prohibit emissions that 

will interfere with measures to protect 

visibility in another state for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), 

chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 

Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation). 

For the portion of today’s final action 

related to the 2007 Transport SIP, we 

are taking final action only with regard 

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

requirement that the SIP must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in California from emitting 

pollutants that will interfere with 

another state’s measures to protect 

visibility. EPA intends to act in separate 

rulemakings on other portions of 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP that 

address the remaining elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.4

We proposed to approve the CRHP 

and the 2007 Transport SIP because we 

determined that they complied with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Our 

proposed action provides more 

information about the relevant CAA 

requirements, EPA guidance, the state’s 

submittals, and our review and 

evaluation of these SIP revisions. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 

30-day public comment period. We 

received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 

EPA is fully approving the California 

Regional Haze Plan as satisfying all of 

the relevant requirements of Section 

169B and the Regional Haze Rule. 

Specifically, we find that California has 

met the following Regional Haze Rule 

requirements: The State established 

baseline visibility conditions and 

reasonable progress goals for each of its 

Class I areas; the State developed a longterm strategy with enforceable measures 

ensuring reasonable progress towards 

meeting the reasonable progress goals 

for the first ten-year planning period, 

through 2018; the State has adequately 

addressed the application of Best 

Available Retrofit Technology to 

specific stationary sources; the State has 

an adequate regional haze monitoring 

strategy; the State provided for 

consultation and coordination with 

Federal land managers in producing its 

regional haze plan; and, the State 

provided for the regional haze plan’s 

future revisions. 

In addition, under section 110(k)(3) of 

the CAA, we are fully approving the 

2007 Transport SIP and the following 

specific elements of the CRHP as 

satisfying the CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to 

prohibit emissions that will interfere 

with measures to protect visibility in 

another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: Chapter 3 

(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 

(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and, 

chapter 8 (Consultation). 

IV. 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 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 

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 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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 34611 

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 August 15, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes 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 dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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 F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(386) and (c)(387) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(386) The following plan was 

submitted on November 16, 2007, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved]. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

(1) CARB Resolution 07–28, dated 

September 27, 2007, adopting the ‘‘2007 

State Implementation Plan for the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ (‘‘2007 State 

Strategy’’). 

(2) ‘‘Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone Standard and PM2.5 to 

satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State 

of California (September 21, 2007),’’ as 

modified by Attachment A and 

submitted as Appendix C to the 2007 

State Strategy (‘‘2007 Transport SIP’’), at 

page 5 (‘‘Evaluation of Interference with 

Other States’ Measures Required to Meet 

Regional Haze and Visibility SIP 

Requirements’’). 

(387) The following plan was 

submitted on March 16, 2009, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved]. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

(1) CARB Resolution 09–4, dated 

January 22, 2009, adopting the 

‘‘California Regional Haze Plan’’. 

(2) The ‘‘California Regional Haze 

Plan’’, adopted on January 22, 2009, as 

amended and supplemented on 

September 8, 2009 in a ‘‘letter from 

James N. Goldstene, CARB to Laura 

Yoshii, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency’’, and as amended 

and supplemented on June 9, 2010 in a 

‘‘letter from James N. Goldstene, CARB 

to Jared Blumenfeld, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’’. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.281 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.281 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(f) Approval. On March 16, 2009, the 

California Air Resources Board 

submitted the ‘‘California Regional Haze 

Plan’’ (‘‘CRHP’’). The CRHP, as 

amended and supplemented on 

September 8, 2009 and June 9, 2010, 

meets the requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 169B and the Regional Haze 

Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. 

■ 4. Part 52 is amended by adding a new 

§ 52.283 to read as follows: 

§ 52.283 Interstate Transport. 

(a) Approval. On November 16, 2007, 

the California Air Resources Board 

submitted the ‘‘Interstate Transport 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone Standard and PM2.5

to satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State 

of California (September 21, 2007)’’ 

(‘‘2007 Transport SIP’’). The 2007 

Transport SIP and the additional plan 

elements listed below meet the 

following specific requirements of Clean 

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (‘‘1997 standards’’). 

(1) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility for the 1997 standards are met 

by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), 

chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 

Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) 

of the ‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ 

adopted January 22, 2009. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2011–14479 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8183] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES