[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 23908]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-49]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-299-000]

Black Marlin Pipeline Company; Notice of Cash-Out Report

April 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 4, 2006, Black Marlin Pipeline Company
(Black Marlin) tendered for filing its annual cash-out report for the
calendar year ended December 31, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time April 21, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6161 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58752-58753]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24753]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1537]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard
determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: September 9, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Chief executive
       State and county         Location and case     officer of       Community map     Online location of letter of    Effective date of    Community,
                                       No.             community        repository               map revision               modification         No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    Maricopa..................  City of Chandler,  The Honorable     Public Works      http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Oct. 9, 2015.......       040040
                                 (15-09-0578P).     Jay Tibshraeny,   Department, 215
                                                    Mayor, City of    East Buffalo
                                                    Chandler, 175     Street,
                                                    South Arizona     Chandler, AZ
                                                    Avenue,           85244.
                                                    Chandler, AZ
                                                    85225.
    Maricopa..................  City of Goodyear,  The Honorable     City Hall, 190    http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Dec. 4, 2015.......       040046
                                 (15-09-0312P).     Georgia Lord,     North
                                                    Mayor, City of    Litchfield
                                                    Goodyear, 190     Road, Goodyear,
                                                    North             AZ 85338.
                                                    Litchfield
                                                    Road, Goodyear,
                                                    AZ 85338.
    Maricopa..................  Town of Gilbert,   The Honorable     Municipal         http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Oct. 9, 2015.......       040044
                                 (15-09-0578P).     John Lewis,       Center, 50 East
                                                    Mayor, Town of    Civic Center
                                                    Gilbert, 50       Drive, Gilbert,
                                                    East Civic        AZ 85296.
                                                    Center Drive,
                                                    Gilbert, AZ
                                                    85296.
    Maricopa..................  Unincorporated     The Honorable     Flood Control     http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Dec. 4, 2015.......       040037
                                 areas of           Steve Chucri,     District of
                                 Maricopa County,   Chairman,         Maricopa
                                 (15-09-0312P).     Maricopa County   County, 2801
                                                    Board of          West Durango
                                                    Supervisors,      Street,
                                                    301 W.            Phoenix, AZ
                                                    Jefferson, 10th   85009.
                                                    Floor, Phoenix,
                                                    AZ 85003.
    Maricopa..................  Unincorporated     The Honorable     Flood Control     http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Oct. 9, 2015.......       040037
                                 areas of           Denny Barney,     District,
                                 Maricopa County,   District 1        Maricopa
                                 (15-09-0578P).     Supervisor        County, 2801
                                                    Maricopa          West Durango
                                                    County, 301       Street,
                                                    West Jefferson    Phoenix, AZ
                                                    Street,           85009.
                                                    Phoenix, AZ
                                                    85003.
    Pima......................  City of Tucson,    The Honorable     Planning and      http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Nov. 13, 2015......       040076
                                 (15-09-0584P).     Jonathan          Development
                                                    Rothschild,       Services, 201
                                                    Mayor, City of    North Stone
                                                    Tucson, City      Avenue, 1st
                                                    Hall, 255 W.      Floor, Tucson,
                                                    Alameda St.,      AZ 85701.
                                                    Tucson, AZ
                                                    85701.
California:
    Los Angeles...............  City of Burbank,   The Honorable     Public Works      http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Dec. 10, 2015......       065018
                                 (15-09-0591P).     Bob Frutos,       Department, 275
                                                    Mayor, City of    East Olive
                                                    Burbank, 275      Avenue,
                                                    East Olive        Burbank, CA
                                                    Avenue,           91502.
                                                    Burbank, CA
                                                    91502.
    Sacramento................  City of Citrus     The Honorable     General Services  http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Oct. 22, 2015......       060765
                                 Heights, (15-09-   Sue Frost,        Department,
                                 1345P).            Mayor, City of    Engineering
                                                    Citrus Heights,   Division, 6237
                                                    6237 Fountain     Fountain Square
                                                    Square Drive,     Drive, Citrus
                                                    Citrus Heights,   Heights, CA
                                                    CA 95621.         95621.
    San Diego.................  City of Santee,    The Honorable     City Hall, 10601  http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Nov. 20, 2015......       060703
                                 (15-09-0699P).     Randy Voepel,     Magnolia
                                                    Mayor, City of    Avenue, Santee,
                                                    Santee, 10601     CA 92071.
                                                    Magnolia
                                                    Avenue, Santee,
                                                    CA 92071.
    Ventura...................  City of Simi       The Honorable     Public Works      http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Oct. 19, 2015......       060421
                                 Valley, (15-09-    Bob Huber,        Department,
                                 1169P).            Mayor, City of    2929 Tapo
                                                    Simi Valley,      Canyon Road,
                                                    2929 Tapo         Simi Valley, CA
                                                    Canyon Road,      93063.
                                                    Simi Valley, CA
                                                    93063.
Nevada:
    Clark.....................  City of            The Honorable     Public Works      http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Dec. 10, 2015......       320005
                                 Henderson, (15-    Andy A. Hafen,    Department, 240
                                 09-0952P).         Mayor, City of    Water Street,
                                                    Henderson, 240    Henderson, NV
                                                    Water Street,     89015.
                                                    Henderson, NV
                                                    89015.
    Clark.....................  Unincorporated     The Honorable     Office of the     http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc...  Oct. 14, 2015......       320003
                                 areas of Clark     Steve Sisolak,    Director of
                                 County, (15-09-    Chairman, Clark   Public Works,
                                 1082P).            County Board of   500 South Grand
                                                    Commissioners,    Central
                                                    500 South Grand   Parkway, Las
                                                    Central           Vegas, NV 89155.
                                                    Parkway, Las
                                                    Vegas, NV 89155.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-24753 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: August 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 50049-50050]
[DOCID:fr25au08-69]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0885]

Public Meeting on Amendments to the International Mobile
Satellite Organization (IMSO) Convention

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) will hold a public meeting on
issues related to proposed amendments to the Convention of the
International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO). Background
documentation may be found on the Department of State's Web site:
http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/cip/imso/.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 4, 2008 from 10
a.m. to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100
Second Street, SW., Washington, DC. Room 6103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Jason Smith at
(202) 372-1376 or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax to (202)
372-1925.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This public meeting will discuss proposed
Amendments to the International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO)
Convention to Improve Governance and Transparency of IMSO, to provide
IMSO with the necessary legal authority to perform its role in the
Congressionally-mandated Long Range Identification and Tracking of
Ships (LRIT) system and to provisionally apply those amendments in
advance of their formal entry into force.
    The amendments are intended to improve the governance and
transparency of IMSO oversight and responsibilities that may affect
U.S. and non-U.S. mobile satellite services providers. The IMSO is
convening its biennial Assembly of Parties meeting September 29-October
3, 2008, in Malta, during which the 92 member governments (Parties)
will have the opportunity to consider and act on U.S. proposals (1) to
amend the intergovernmental IMSO Convention to improve the governance
and transparency of (i) IMSO's performance of its role in oversight of
providers for the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)
and (ii) IMSO's performance of its role as Coordinator of Long Range
Identification and Tracking of ships (LRIT) for the International
Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee (IMO MSC); and (2) to
consider whether to provisionally apply those amendments upon their
adoption by the IMSO Assembly, pending their formal entry into force.
    Currently, the IMSO's authority for oversight of GMDSS services
applies exclusively to Inmarsat PLC. In September 2006, the IMSO
Assembly adopted amendments to the IMSO Convention that were intended
to extend IMSO's GMDSS oversight to include all mobile satellite
service providers, not just Inmarsat PLC. Additionally, in the context
of work that has been ongoing in the IMO, the IMSO Assembly of Parties
at the same meeting adopted an amendment to the IMSO Convention that
purports to authorize IMSO to perform certain review and auditing
functions for a new vessel ``LRIT'' system being developed for maritime
security. The United States, along with other Parties, objected to
these amendments because they did not contain sufficient elements of
transparency for IMSO's governance and do not provide an adequate legal
foundation for IMSO to undertake functions as LRIT Coordinator.
Further, at an extraordinary Assembly of Parties meeting in March 2007,
a majority of Parties attending the Assembly decided to provisionally
apply them, again over the United States' objection. In the meantime,
the Congress has mandated that the Department of Homeland Security
develop and implement, consistent with international treaties,
conventions, and agreements to which the United States is a party, an
LRIT system for all vessels equipped with GMDSS or equivalent
technology. See 46 U.S.C. 70115. In a related development, over United
States' objection, the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) decided to
recommend, and the IMO Assembly adopted, a resolution mandating that
new satellite providers admitted to the GMDSS by the MSC must be
overseen by IMSO. See IMO Res. A.1001(25), which revoked and replaced
IMO Res. A.888(21). Because of these latter developments, particularly
the adoption by the IMO of Res. A.1001, and in order to put the IMSO on
a sound legal foundation that will provide sufficient governance and
transparency principles for IMSO's operations in these two new
functions, the United States is planning to propose and negotiate a
draft set of amendments to the IMSO Convention at the upcoming Assembly
of Parties that will accomplish these purposes. The public meeting is
intended to solicit public comment on that approach.

Public comment will also be solicited on provisional application of
those amendments. If provisional application is approved, the Parties
would apply those amendments in advance of their formal entry into
force under the terms of the IMSO Convention. Formal entry into force
under the IMSO Convention requires deposit of an instrument of
acceptance with the depositary by 2/3 of the IMSO Parties at the time
of adoption. As such, it is not likely to occur for a lengthy period of
time. The public meeting will also address other issues that are likely
to come before the IMSO Assembly of Parties meeting, including, inter
alia, a draft reference Public Services Agreement that guides the terms
and conditions of the contractual agreement that satellite service
providers would be required to sign before being allowed to provide
services for the GMDSS. The Public Services Agreement would require the
payment of new fees to the IMSO. Public views and advice are being
sought well in advance of the IMSO Assembly.
    The proposed amendments and other background information relating
to this meeting are available at the following Department of State Web
site: http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/cip/imso/.
    Persons planning to attend this meeting should send their name and
nationality by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax to (202) 372-
1925 not later than 72 hours before the meeting. Please note that due
to security considerations, two valid, government issued photo
identifications must be presented to gain entrance to the Headquarters
building. The Headquarters building is accessible by taxi and privately
owned conveyance (public transportation is not generally available).
However, parking in the vicinity of the building is extremely limited.
    Members of the public are encouraged to participate and join in
discussions, subject to the discretion of the moderator. Persons
wishing to make formal presentations should provide advance notice to
Lieutenant Commander Jason Smith.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Lieutenant Commander Jason Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>as soon as possible.

    Dated: August 21, 2008.
William D. Baumgartner,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Judge Advocate General.
[FR Doc. E8-19711 Filed 8-21-08; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


 [Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 38050-38145] [FR Doc No: C1-2015-12778]

======================================================================= -----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 275 and 279

[Release No. IA-4091; File No. S7-09-15] RIN 3235-AL75

Amendments to Form ADV and Investment Advisers Act Rules

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2015-12778, appearing on pages 33718- 33838 in the issue of Friday, June 12, 2015, make the following  corrections:     On page 33728, in the third column, below the last line, the text  for footnote 92 should appear as follows:     ``\92\ The proposed definition of Legal Entity Identifier is: A  ``legal entity identifier'' assigned or recognized by the Global LEI  Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC) or the Global LEI Foundation  (GLEIF). See Proposed Form ADV: Glossary. In Item 1, we propose  removing outdated text referring to the ``legal entity identifier'' as  being ``in development'' in the first half of 2011.''     On pages 33745-33838, the forms should appear as follows: BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY15.094

[FR Doc. C1-2015-12778 Filed 7-1-15; 08:45 am]  BILLING CODE 1505-01-C


III. HOW TO IDENTIFY SOURCES " SUBJECT TO BART"

Once you have compiled your list of BART eligible sources,

you need to determine whether ( 1) to make BART determinations for all of them or ( 2) to consider exempting some of them from BART because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. If you decide to make BART determinations for all the BART eligible sources on your list, you should work with your regional planning organization ( RPO) to show that, collectively, they cause or contribute to visibility impairment in at least one Class I area.

You should then make individual BART determinations by applying the five statutory factors discussed in Section IV below.

On the other hand, you also may choose to perform an initial examination to determine whether a particular BART eligible source or group of sources causes or contributes to visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. If your analysis, or information submitted by the source, shows that an individual source or group of sources ( or certain pollutants from those sources) is not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area, then you do not need to make BART determinations for that source or group of sources ( or for certain pollutants from those sources). In such a case,

the source is not " subject to BART" and you do not need to apply the five statutory factors to make a BART determination. This section of the Guideline discusses several approaches that you can use to exempt sources from the BART determination process.

A. What Steps Do I Follow to Determine Whether A Source or Group of Sources Cause or Contribute to Visibility Impairment for Purposes of BART?

1. How Do I Establish a Threshold?

One of the first steps in determining whether sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment for purposes of BART is to establish a threshold ( measured in deciviews) against which to measure the visibility impact of one or more sources. A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to " cause" visibility impairment; a source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview change may still contribute to visibility impairment and thus be subject to BART.

Because of varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas, the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source " contributes to any visibility impairment" for the purposes of BART may reasonably differ across States. As a general matter,

any threshold that you use for determining whether a source " contributes" to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.

In setting a threshold for " contribution," you should consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' 1 We expect that regional planning organizations will have modeling information that identifies sources affecting visibility in individual class I areas. impacts. 1 In general, a larger number of sources causing impacts in a Class I area may warrant a lower contribution threshold.

States remain free to use a threshold lower than 0.5 deciviews if they conclude that the location of a large number of BARTeligible sources within the State and in proximity to a Class I area justify this approach.

2. What Pollutants Do I Need to Consider?

You must look at SO2, NOx, and direct particulate matter ( PM) emissions in determining whether sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including both PM10 and PM2.5.

Consistent with the approach for identifying your BART eligible sources, you do not need to consider less than de minimis emissions of these pollutants from a source.

As explained in Section II, you must use your best judgement to determine whether VOC or ammonia emissions are likely to have an impact on visibility in an area. In addition, you may use PM10 or PM2.5 as an indicator for PM2.5 in determining whether a source is subject to BART. In determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment, however, you should distinguish between the fine and coarse particle components of direct particulate emissions. Although both fine and coarse particulate matter contribute to visibility impairment, the longrange transport of fine particles is of particular concern in the formation of regional haze. Air quality modeling results used in the BART determination will provide a more accurate prediction of a source's impact on visibility if the inputs into the model account for the relative particle size of any directly emitted particulate matter ( i. e. PM10 vs. PM2.5).

3. What Kind of Modeling Should I Use to Determine Which Sources and Pollutants Need Not Be Subject to BART?

This section presents several options for determining that certain sources need not be subject to BART. These options rely on different modeling and/ or emissions analysis approaches. They are provided for your guidance. You may also use other reasonable approaches for analyzing the visibility impacts of an individual source or group of sources.

Option 1: Individual Source Attribution Approach ( Dispersion Modeling)

You can use dispersion modeling to determine that an individual source cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area and thus is not subject to BART. Under this option, you can analyze an individual source's impact on visibility as a result of its emissions of SO2, NOx and direct PM emissions. Dispersion modeling cannot currently be used to estimate the predicted impacts on visibility from an individual source's emissions of VOC or ammonia. You may use a more qualitative assessment to determine on a case by case basis which sources of VOC or ammonia 2 The model code and its documentation are available at no cost for download from http:// www. epa. gov/ scram001/ tt22. htm# calpuff.

3 The Guideline on Air Quality Models addresses the regulatory application of air quality models for assessing criteria pollutants under the CAA, and describes further the procedures for using the CALPUFF model, as well as for obtaining approval for the use of other, nonguideline models. emissions may be likely to impair visibility and should therefore be subject to BART review, as explained in section II. A. 3. above.

You can use CALPUFF2, or another EPA approved model, to predict the visibility impacts from a single source at a Class I area. CALPUFF is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment and is currently the only EPA approved model for use in estimating single source pollutant concentrations resulting from the long range transport of primary pollutants. 3 It can also be used for some other purposes, such as the visibility assessments addressed in today's rule, to account for the chemical transformation of SO2 and NOx.

There are several steps for making an individual source attribution using a dispersion model:

! Develop a modeling protocol.

Some critical items to include in the protocol are the meteorological and terrain data that will be used, as well as the source specific information ( stack height, temperature, exit velocity, elevation, and emission rates of applicable pollutants) 4 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modelig ( IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 454/ R 98 019, December 1998. and receptor data from appropriate Class I areas. We recommend following EPA's Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling ( IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts4 for parameter settings and meteorological data inputs. You may use other settings from those in IWAQM, but you should identify these settings and explain your selection of these settings.

One important element of the protocol is in establishing the receptors that will be used in the model. The receptors that you use should be located in the nearest Class I area with sufficient density to identify the likely visibility effects of the source.

For other Class I areas in relatively close proximity to a BARTeligible source, you may model a few strategic receptors to determine whether effects at those areas may be greater than at the nearest Class I area. For example, you might chose to locate receptors at these areas at the closest point to the source, at the highest and lowest elevation in the Class I area, at the IMPROVE monitor, and at the approximate expected plume release height. If the highest modeled effects are observed at the nearest Class I area, you may choose not to analyze the other Class I areas any further, as additional analyses might be unwarranted. You should bear in mind that some receptors within the relevant Class I area may be less than 50 km from the source while other receptors within that same Class I area may be greater than 50 km from the same source. As indicated by the Guideline on Air Quality Models, this situation may call for the use of two different modeling approaches for the same Class I area and source, depending upon the State's chosen method for modeling sources less than 50 km. In situations where you are assessing visibility impacts for source receptor distances less than 50 km, you should use expert modeling judgment in determining visibility impacts, giving consideration to both CALPUFF and other EPA approved methods.

In developing your modeling protocol, you may want to consult with EPA and your regional planning organization ( RPO).

Up front consultation will ensure that key technical issues are addressed before you conduct your modeling.

! Run the model in accordance with the accepted protocol and compare the predicted visibility impacts with your threshold for " contribution."

You should calculate daily visibility values for each receptor as the change in deciviews compared against natural visibility conditions. You can use EPA's " Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule," EPA 454/ B 03 005 ( September 2003) in making this calculation. To determine whether a source may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Class I area, you then compare the impacts predicted by the model against the threshold that you have selected.

The emissions estimates used in the models are intended to reflect steady state operating conditions during periods of high capacity utilization. We do not generally recommend that emissions reflecting periods of start up, shutdown, and malfunction be used, as such emission rates could produce higher than normal effects than would be typical of most facilities. In addition, the monthly average relative humidity is used, rather than the daily average humidity   an approach that effectively lowers the peak values in daily model averages.

For these reasons, if you use the modeling approach we recommend, you should compare your " contribution" threshold against the 98th percentile of values. If the 98th percentile value from your modeling is less than your contribution threshold, then you may conclude that the source does not contribute to visibility impairment and is not subject to BART.

Option 2: Use of Model Plants to Exempt Individual Sources with Common Characteristics.

Under this option, analysis of model plants could be used to exempt certain BART eligible sources that share specific characteristics. It may be most useful to use this type of analysis to identify the types of small sources that do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment for purposes of BART, and 5 [ insert reference to Mark's docket memo] thus should not be subject to a BART review. Different Class I areas may have different characteristics, however, so you should use care to ensure that the criteria you develop are appropriate for the applicable cases.

In carrying out this approach, you could use modeling analyses of representative plants to reflect groupings of specific sources with important common characteristics. Based on these analyses, you may find that certain types of sources are clearly anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment. You could then choose to categorically require those types of sources to undergo a BART determination. Conversely,

you may find based on representative plant analyses that certain types of sources are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment. To do this, you may conduct your own modeling to establish emission levels and distances from Class I areas on which you can rely to exempt sources with those characteristics. For example, based on your modeling you might choose to exempt all NOx only sources that emit less than a certain amount per year and are located a certain distance from a Class I area. You could then choose to categorically exempt such sources from the BART determination process.

Our analyses of visibility impacts from model plants provide a useful example of the type of analyses that can be used to exempt categories of sources from BART. 5 In our analysis, we developed model plants ( EGUs and non EGUs), with representative plume and stack characteristics, for use in considering the visibility impact from emission sources of different sizes and compositions at distances of 50, 100 and 200 kilometers from two hypothetical Class I areas ( one in the East and one in the West).

Since the plume and stack characteristics of these model plants were developed considering the broad range of sources within the EGU and non EGU categories, they do not necessarily represent any specific plant. However, the results of these analyses are instructive in the development of an exemption process for any Class I area.

In preparing our analysis, we have made a number of assumptions and exercised certain modeling choices; some of these have a tendency to lend conservatism to the results, overstating the likely effects, while others may understate the likely effects. On balance, when all of these factors are considered,

we believe that our examples reflect realistic treatments of the situations being modeled. Based on our analysis, we believe that a State that has established 0.5 deciviews as a contribution threshold could reasonably exempt from the BART review process sources that emit less than 500 tons per year of Nox or SO2 ( or combined Nox and SO2), as long as these sources are located more than 50 kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that emit less than 1000 tons per year of Nox or SO2 ( or combined Nox and SO2) that are located more than 100 kilometers from any Class I area.

Option 3: Cumulative Modeling to Show that No sources in a State are subject to BART You may also submit to EPA a demonstration, based on an analysis of overall visibility impacts, that emissions from BART eligible sources in your State, considered together, are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area and thus no source should be subject to BART. You may do this on a pollutant by pollutant basis or for all visibility impairing pollutants to determine if emissions from these sources contribute to visibility impairment.

For example, emissions of SO2 from your BART eligible sources may clearly cause or contribute to visibility impairment,

while direct emissions of PM2.5 from these sources may not contribute to impairment. If you can make such a demonstration,

then you may reasonably conclude that none of your BART eligible sources are subject to BART for a particular pollutant or pollutants. As noted above, your demonstration should take into account the interactions among pollutants and their resulting impacts on visibility before making any pollutant specific determinations.

Analyses may be conducted using several alternative modeling approaches. First, you may use the CALPUFF or another EPAapproved model as described in Option 1 to evaluate the impacts of individual sources on downwind Class I areas, aggregating those impacts to determine the collective contribution of all BART eligible sources to visibility impairment. You may also use a photochemical grid model. As a general matter, the larger the number of sources being modeled, the more appropriate it may be to use a photochemical grid model. However, because such models are significantly less sensitive than dispersion models to the contributions of one or a few sources, as well as to the interactions among sources that are widely distributed geographically, if you wish to use a grid model, you should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office to develop an appropriate modeling protocol.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52159-52160]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21282]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0104]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable
Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denials.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from three
individuals treated with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs)
who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting operation of a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce by persons with a current clinical
diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary
insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a
variety known to be accompanied by syncope (transient loss of
consciousness), dyspnea (shortness of breath), collapse, or congestive
heart failure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing materials in the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0104 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process.

DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On May 22, 2019, FMCSA published a FR notice (84 FR 23632)
announcing receipt of applications from three individuals treated with
ICDs and requested comments from the public. These three individuals
requested an exemption from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(4) which prohibits
operation of a CMV in interstate commerce by persons with a current
clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary
insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a
variety known to be accompanied by syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or
congestive heart failure. The public comment period closed on June 21,
2019, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(4). A
summary of each applicant's medical history related to their ICD
exemption request was discussed in the May 22, 2019, Federal Register
notice and will not be repeated here.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on information from the Cardiovascular Medical Advisory Criteria,
an April 2007 evidence report titled ``Cardiovascular Disease and
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' \1\ and a December 2014
focused research report titled ``Implantable Cardioverter
Defibrillators and the Impact of a Shock in a Patient When Deployed.''
Copies of these reports are included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The reports are available on the internet at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/16462; https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/21199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist medical examiners
in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are
qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.\2\ The advisory
criteria for Sec.  391.41(b)(4) indicates that coronary artery bypass
surgery and pacemaker implantation are remedial procedures and thus,
not medically disqualifying. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators
are disqualifying due to risk of syncope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These criteria may be found in 49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A
TO PART 391--MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section D. Cardiovascular:
Sec.  391.41(b)(4), paragraph 4, which is available on the internet
at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, available medical and scientific data concerning ICDs, and
any relevant public comments received.
    In the case of persons with ICDs, the underlying condition for
which the ICD was implanted places the individual at high risk for
syncope or other unpredictable events known to result in gradual or
sudden incapacitation. ICDs may discharge, which could result in loss
of ability to safely control a CMV. The December 2014 focused research
report referenced previously upholds the findings of the April 2007
report and indicates that the available scientific data on persons with
ICDs and CMV driving does not support that persons with ICDs who
operate CMVs are able to meet an equal or greater level of safety.

V. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that the available medical and scientific
literature and research provides insufficient data to enable the Agency
to conclude that granting these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained
without the exemption. Therefore, the following three applicants have
been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in
Sec.  391.41(b)(4):

Martin Carter (ME)
Vincent Collelo (WI)
Richard D. Siske (OH)

    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final
action by the Agency. The list published today summarizes the Agency's
recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4).

    Issued on: September 25, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-21282 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST ( in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51  App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Commonwealth of Virginia Date Submitted: October 25, 2005 Subject: VOC Emissions Standards for the Northern Virginia Ozone Nonattainment Area, Consumer Products ( Rule 4 50)

Completeness Review Completed by: Rose Quinto Date Completed: November 2, 2005 Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof. 1. Letter dated October 25, 2005 from Robert G. Burnley,

Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air Protection Division, Region III. Yes 2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order,

consent agreement in final form. That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/ issuance date. 2. Revision was adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on November 3, 2004, in accordance with the requirements of section 10.1 1308 of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law, and 40 CFR Part 51. Effective date of the revision is March 9, 2005. Yes 3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan. 3. Revision adopted pursuant to section 10.1 1308 of the Virginia Air Pollution Control law. Yes Administrative Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

2 4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan,

including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/ document signed, stamped,

dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/ document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 4. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, 9 VAC 5 Chapter 20, General Provisions and 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Existing Stationary Sources  Consumer Products regulation adopted on November 3, 2004, published in the Virginia Register of Regulations on February 7, 2005, and effective on March 9, 2005. Yes 5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/ issuance of the plan. 5. A letter dated October 25, 2005, from Robert G. Burnley,

Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III.

Certification of Public Participation Activities. Copy of public hearing notice run on August 9, 2004 The Washington Times. Yes 6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. Copy of hearing notice run on August 9, 2004 The Washington Times. Yes 7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable. 7. Public hearing held on September 9, 2004; Certification of Public Participation Activities found in Enclosure 2 to the letter dated October 25, 2005, from Robert G. Burnley, Director,

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M.

Katz, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III. Yes 8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. Record of Heating and Summary of Testimony found in Enclosure 3 to the letter dated October 25, 2005, from Robert G. Burnley, Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III. Comments were received on this particular revision. Yes Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

3 1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. N/ A 2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/ nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area( s). 2. N/ A 3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate,

quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. 3. N/ A 4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. N/ A 5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,

ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,

justification for use of offsite data ( where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis. 5. N/ A 6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology. 6 N/ A Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

4 7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/ reporting requirements,

where necessary, to ensure emission levels. 7. N/ A 8. Compliance/ enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8 N/ A 9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. ( If a policy is not appropriate,

explain why.) 9. N/ A 10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. 10. N/ A