  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DATE:	September 11, 2006

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - West Virginia; Redesignation to
Attainment of the Weirton (Brooke and Hancock Counties) Portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Ozone Nonattainment Area and Approval of the
Area’s Maintenance Plan (EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0692)

FROM:	Amy Caprio, Environmental Scientist

		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO:		File

THRU:	Makeba Morris, Chief

		Air Quality Planning Branch

I.  BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2006, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) formally submitted a redesignation request for the
Weirton portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV interstate ozone
nonattainment area (the “Area”) to attainment of the eight-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  The Area is
comprised of three counties (Brooke and Hancock Counties, West Virginia
and Jefferson County, Ohio).  Also, On August 3, 2006, West Virginia
submitted a maintenance plan for Weirton as a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision, to assure continued attainment over the next 12 years.

The Area was designated as basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment status on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), based on its exceedance of the
health-based standards for ozone.  Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA, the following five criteria must be met for an ozone nonattainment
area to be redesignated to attainment:

A.  The area must meet the ozone NAAQS.

B.  The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k).

C.  The area must show improvement in air quality due to permanent and
enforceable reductions

in emissions.

D. The area must meet all requirements applicable under section 110 and
Part D.

E.  The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan under section
175A of the CAA.

II. EPA Analysis of the State of West Virginia’s Request

As identified above, Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA establishes five
criteria that an area must meet in order to be redesignated to
attainment.  EPA provided guidance on how it would review requests for
redesignation in a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division Directors, entitled,
“Proceedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment.”  The following is a discussion of how the State of West
Virginia’s August 3, 2006 submittal satisfies the five requirements of
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will discuss its evaluation of the maintenance plan under its
analysis of the redesignation request.

A.  Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS in the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
Area

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator shall
determine whether an area has achieved the ozone standard based on the
design value of that area.  The design value for an area is based on the
three-year average (2002-2004) of the monitored annual fourth-highest
daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration.  In the Area,
there are two ozone monitors, one in Hancock County, West Virginia (the
Weirton Monitor) and one in Jefferson County, Ohio (the Steubenville
Monitor).  According to the Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, which establishes the procedure for interpreting ozone
monitoring data under the standard promulgated in 40 CFR 50.10, the Area
is attaining the ozone standard for 2002-2004 and 2003-2005 (see Table 1
below).  The data collected at the ozone monitors satisfy the CAA
requirement that the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration is less than or
equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm).  The State of West Virginia’s
request for redesignation of Weirton indicates that the data was quality
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  The States use the Air
Quality System (AQS) as the permanent database to maintain its data and
quality assures the data transfers and content for accuracy.  In
addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, WVDEP
has committed to continue monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 1: Weirton, WV Nonattainment Area Fourth
Highest 8-hour Average Values; Hancock Monitor, AQS ID 54-029-1004

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2002	0.100

2003	0.077

2004	0.073

2005	0.075

The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.083 ppm

The average for the 3-year period of 2003 through 2005 is 0.075 ppm

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Steubenville, OH  Nonattainment Area Fourth
Highest 8-hour Average Values; Jefferson Monitor, AQS ID 39-081-0016

Year	Annual 4th High Reading (ppm)

2002	0.093

2003	0.079

2004	0.071

2005	0.083

The average for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 is 0.081 ppm

The average for the 3-year period of 2003 through 2005 is 0.077 ppm

The air quality data for 2002-2004 show that the Area has attained the
standard with a design value of 0.083 ppm for Weirton and a design value
of 0.081 ppm for Steubenville.  Also, the air quality date for 2003-2005
indicates that the area is still attaining the 8-hour standard with a
design value of 0.075 ppm in Weirton and a design value of 0.077 ppm in
Steubenville.  In addition, as discussed below with respect to the
maintenance plan, WVDEP has committed to continue monitoring in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.  In summary, EPA has determined that the
data submitted by West Virginia and data taken from AQS indicates that
the Area has attained and continues (based on preliminary 2006 data) to
attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B.  Fully approved SIP under Section 110(k) of the CAA

EPA has determined that Weirton has met all SIP requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP
Requirements) and that it meets all applicable SIP requirements under
Part D of Title I of the CAA, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v).  In addition, EPA has determined that the SIP is fully
approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).  In making
these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained what requirements are
applicable to the area, and determined that the applicable portions of
the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section
110(k) of the CAA.  We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with
respect to applicable requirements.

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992)
describes EPA’s interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) with respect to
the timing of applicable requirements.  Under this interpretation, to
qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment
must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that came due prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation request.  See also Michael Shapiro
memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7,
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).  Applicable requirements of
the CAA that come due subsequent to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request for an area remain applicable until a
redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to
redesignation.  Section 175A(c) of the CAA.  Sierra Club v. EPA, 375
F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).  See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003)
(redesignation of St. Louis).

1.  Section 110 General SIP Requirements:

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2)
include, but are not limited to, the following:

Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable
public notice and hearing;

Provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;

Implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirement (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD));

Provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs;

Provisions for air pollution modeling; and

Provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and
emission control rule development.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state.  To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants in accordance with the NOx SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63
FR 57356), amendments to the NOx SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298)
and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161).  However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area’s designation and classification in that state.  EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request.  The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the state.

Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be construed to
be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.  In addition,
EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area’s
attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.  West Virginia and Ohio will still be subject to these
requirements after the Area is redesignated.  The section 110 and Part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular area’s designation
and classification, are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request.  This policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement.  See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and
final rulemakings 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May
7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 61 FR 20458
(May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995).  See also the discussion on this issue in the
Cincinnati redesignation 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001).  Similarly,
with respect to the NOx SIP Call rules, EPA noted in its Phase 1 Final
Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, that the NOx SIP Call rules
are not “an ‘applicable requirement’ for purposes of section
110(l) because the NOx rules apply regardless of an area’s attainment
or nonattainment status for the 8-hour (or the 1-hour) NAAQS.” 69 FR
23951, 23983 (April 30, 2004).

EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the Part D requirements
for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, because, as we
explain in the notice, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission
of the redesignation request.

Because the West Virginia SIP satisfies all of the applicable general
SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2),  EPA
concludes that West Virginia satisfied the criterion of section
107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the Act.

2.  Weirton area has a fully approved SIP for the purposes of
redesignation:

EPA has fully approved the West Virginia SIP for the purposes of
redesignation.  EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request.  Calcagni Memo, p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F. 3d 984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional measures it
may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action.  See 68 FR 25425
(May 12, 2003) and citations therein.  The Area was a 1-hour
attainment/unclassifiable area (See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) at
the time of its designation as a basic 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
on April 30, 2004.  Because the Area was never designated as a Part
nonattainment area, there were no previous Part D SIP submittal
requirements for the Area.  Nor have any Part D submittal reuirements
have come due prior to the submittal of the 8-hour maintenance plan for
the Area.  See 59 FR 45980 at 45981-45982 (September 6, 1994), 59 FR
45019 (September 6, 1994), and, 59 FR 65719 (December 21, 1994).
Because there are no current outstanding SIP submission requirements
applicable for the purposes of redesignation of Area, the applicable
implementation plan satisfies all pertinent SIP requirements.  As
indicated previously, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not
connected with Part D nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to
the area’s nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.  EPA also believes that no 8-hour Part D
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation have yet become
due for the Area, and therefore they need not be approved into the SIP
prior to redesignation.

C.  Demonstration of Permanent and Enforceable Improvement

EPA believes that the States have demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.  Emissions
reductions attributable to these rules, in Weirton, are shown in Table
2.

Table 2:  Weirton Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)2

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area1	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	6.7	4.5	1.5	3.2	15.9

Year 2004	4.8	4.6	1.5	2.6	13.5

Diff. (02-04)	-1.9	+0.1	0	-0.6	-2.4

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area1	Nonroad	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	5.9	4.6	4.3	4.3	19.1

Year 2004	4.5	4.8	5.3	3.6	18.2

Diff. (02-04)	-1.4	+0.2	+1.0	-0.7	-0.9

1  West Virginia reports that fire emissions are assumed to remain
constant

Steubenville Total VOC and NOx Emissions for 2002 and 2004 (tpd)2

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Year	Point	Area 	Nonroad3	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	1.1	3.1	1.0	4.2	9.4

Year 2004	1.2	3.1	0.9	3.6	8.8

Diff. (02-04)	+0.1	0	-0.1	-0.6	-0.6

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Year	Point	Area 	Nonroad3	Mobile	Total

Year 2002	190.0	0.2	2.4	6.3	198.9

Year 2004	154.7	0.2	2.3	5.4	162.6

Diff. (02-04)	-35.3	0	-0.1	-0.9	-36.3

2 Numbers are not exact, due to rounding

3 Emissions include Marine, Aircraft, Rail (MAR)

Between 2002 and 2004, VOC emissions were reduced by 2.4 tpd, and NOx
emissions were reduced by 0.9 tpd, due to the following permanent and
enforceable measures implemented or in the process of being implemented
in Weirton:

Programs Currently in Effect

(a)  National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV);

(b)  Motor vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards; and,

(c)  Clean Diesel Program.

West Virginia has demonstrated that the implementation of permanent
enforceable emissions controls have reduced local NOx emissions.  The
0.6 tpd reductions in mobile VOCs are attributable to mobile source
emission controls such as federally mandated Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline
Sulfur Program and the Clean Diesel Program.

Between 2002 and 2004, Steubenville shows a decrease in overall VOC
emissions of 0.6 tpd and an overall decrease in emissions of NOx of 36.3
tpd.  This indicates that the Area has had an overall reduction in VOC
and NOx emissions.

Nearly all of the reductions in NOx are attributable to the
implementation of the NOx SIP Call.  West Virginia has indicated in its
submittal that the implementation of the NOx SIP Call, with its
mandatory reductions in NOx emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs) and large industrial boilers (non-EGUs), reduced NOx emissions
throughout the Area.  While there are no EGU sources in Brooke or
Hancock Counties (Weirton) there are EGUs and non-EGUs located in
adjacent counties such as Jefferson County (Steubenville) and Ohio
County, West Virginia.  Between 2002 and 2004, Steubenville had a 35.3
tpd reduction in NOx emissions from EGU sources.  Therefore, the NOx SIP
call has had an impact on the air quality in the entire Area.  NOx
emissions from non-EGU sources in Weirton were reduced by 1.4 tpd
between 2002 and 2004.  The WVDEP believes that the improvement in ozone
air quality from 2002 to 2004 was the result of identifiable, permanent
and enforceable reductions in ozone precursor emissions for the same
period.

Additionally, WVDEP has identified, but not quantified, additional
reductions in VOC emissions that will be achieved as a co-benefit of the
reductions in the emission of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as a
result of implementation of EPA’s Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards.

Other regulations, such as the non-road diesel, 69 FR 39858 (June 29,
2004), the heavy duty engine and vehicle standards, 66 FR 5002 (January
18, 2001) and the new Tier 2 tailpipe standards for automobiles, 65 FR
6698 (January 10, 2000), are also expected to greatly reduce emissions
throughout the country and thereby reduce emissions impacting the Area
monitors.  The Tier 2 standards came into effect in 2004, and by 2030,
EPA expects that the new Tier 2 standards will reduce NOx emissions by
about 74 percent nationally.  EPA believes that permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions are the cause of the long-term
improvement in ozone levels and are the cause of the area achieving
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

Conformity Process

1.  What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)?

Under the CAA, States are required to submit, at various times, control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas.  These control
strategy SIPs (i.e., RFP SIPs and attainment demonstration SIPs) and
maintenance plans identify and establish MVEBs for certain criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road
mobile sources.  In the maintenance plan the MVEBs are termed “on-road
mobile source emissions budgets.”  Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93 and
51.112, MVEBs must be established in an ozone maintenance plan.  A MVEB
is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.  A MVEB serves as a
ceiling on emissions from an area’s planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).  The preamble
also describes how to establish and revise the MVEBs in control strategy
SIPs and maintenance plans.

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as
the construction

of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the
part of the State’s air

quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks.
“Conformity” to the SIP means

that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing

violations, or delay timely attainment of or reasonable progress towards
the NAAQS.  If a transportation plan does not “conform,” most new
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.

When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance
plans containing

MVEBs, EPA must affirmatively find the MVEB budget contained therein
“adequate” for

use in determining transportation conformity.  After EPA affirmatively
finds the submitted

MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB can
be used by State

and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects “conform” to

the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.  EPA’s substantive
criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4).

EPA’s process for determining “adequacy” consists of three basic
steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period,
and EPA’s adequacy finding.  This process for determining the adequacy
of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999
guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.”  This guidance was finalized in the
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous
Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
- Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change” on July 1,
2004 (69 FR 40004).  EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making
its adequacy determinations.

The MVEBs for Weirton are listed in Table 3 of this document for the
2004 (attainment year emissions), 2009, and 2018 years and are the
projected emissions for the on-road mobile sources plus any portion of
the safety margin allocated to the MVEBs (safety margin allocation for
2009 and 2018 only).  These emission budgets, when approved by EPA, must
be used for transportation conformity determinations.

Table 3: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day (tpd)

Year	NOx	VOC

2004	3.6	2.6

2009	2.8	2.0

2018	1.2	1.0

2.  What is a Safety Margin?

A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan.  The attainment level of emissions
is the level of emissions during one of the years in which Weirton met
the NAAQS.  The following example is for the 2018 safety margin: Weirton
first attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002 to 2004 time
period.  The State used 2004 as the year to determine attainment levels
of emissions for Weirton.  The total emissions from point, area, mobile
on-road, and mobile non-road sources in 2004 equaled 13.5 tpd of VOC and
18.2 tpd of NOx.  The WVDEP projected emissions out to the year 2018 and
projected a total of 12.4 tpd of VOC and 15.2 tpd of NOx from all
sources in Weirton.  The safety margin for Weirton for 2018 would be the
difference between these amounts, or 1.1 tpd of VOC and 3.0 tpd of NOx.
The emissions up to the level of the attainment year including the
safety margins are projected to maintain the area's air quality
consistent with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  The safety margin is the extra
emissions reduction below the attainment levels that can be allocated
for emissions by various sources as long as the total emission levels
are maintained at or below the attainment levels.  Table 4 shows the
safety margins for the 2009 and 2018 years.

Table 4:  2009 and 2018 Safety Margins for Weirton

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpd)	NOx Emissions (tpd)

2004 Attainment	13.5	18.2

2009 Interim	11.9	16.6

2009 Safety Margin	1.6	1.6

2004 Attainment	13.5	18.2

2018 Final	12.4	15.2

2018 Safety Margin	1.1	3.0

The WVDEP allocated 0.37 tpd NOx and 0.26 tpd VOC to the 2009 interim
VOC projected on-road mobile source emissions projection and the 2009
interim NOx projected on-road mobile source emissions projection to
arrive at the 2009 MVEBs.  For the 2018 MVEBs the WVDEP allocated 0.15
tpd NOx and 0.13 tpd VOC from the 2018 safety margins to arrive at the
2018 MVEBs.  Once allocated to the mobile source budgets these portions
of the safety margins are no longer available, and may no longer be
allocated to any other source category.  Table 5 shows the final 2009
and 2018 MVEBS for Weirton.

Table 5:  2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Weirton, West Virginia

Inventory Year	VOC Emissions (tpd)	NOx Emissions (tpd)

2009 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	1.70	2.45

2009 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.26	0.37

2009 MVEBs*	1.96	2.82

2018 projected on-road mobile source projected emissions	0.87	1.02

2018 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs	0.13	0.15

2018 MVEBs*	1.00	1.17

* Highway budgets are shown at a precision of two decimal places for
conformity purposes

It should be noted that the above MVEBs are to be used by the
transportation authorities to assure that transportation plans,
programs, and projects for the West Virginia portion of the
nonattainment area are consistent with, and conform to, the maintenance
plan of acceptable air quality in Brooke and Hancock Counties.

3.  Why Are the MVEBs Approvable?

The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for Weirton are approvable because the MVEBs for
NOx and VOC, including the allocated safety margins, continue to
maintain the total emissions at or below the attainment year inventory
levels as required by the transportation conformity regulations.

4.  What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for the MVEBs in the
Weirton Maintenance Plan?

The MVEBs for the Weirton maintenance plan are being posted to EPA's
conformity Web site concurrent with this proposal.  The public comment
period will end at the same time as the public comment period for this
proposed rule.  In this case, EPA is concurrently processing the action
on the maintenance plan and the adequacy process for the MVEBs contained
therein.  In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find the MVEBs
adequate and also proposing to approve the MVEBs as part of the
maintenance plan.  The MVEBs cannot be used for transportation
conformity until the maintenance plan update and associated MVEBs are
approved in a final Federal Register notice, or EPA otherwise finds the
budgets adequate in a separate action following the comment period.

If EPA receives adverse written comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Weirton MVEBs, or any other aspect of our proposed
approval of this updated maintenance plan, we will respond to the
comments on the MVEBs in our final action or proceed with the adequacy
process as a separate action.  Our action on the Weirton MVEBs will also
be announced on EPA's conformity Web site:  http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq,
(once there, click on the “Conformity” button, then look for
“Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”).  Also, see the
Weirton mobile budget TSD.

D.  The Area Must Meet All Requirements Applicable Under Section 110 and
Part D

The Area was designated a basic nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone
standard.  Sections 172-176 of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of Part D,
set forth the basic nonattainment requirements for all nonattainment
areas.  As discussed previously, there are no outstanding Part D
submittals under the 1-hour standard for the Area, because it was
designated as attainment/unclassifiable.

Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, establishes
additional specific requirements depending on the area’s nonattainment
classification.  The Area was classified as a subpart 1 nonattainment
area; therefore, no subpart 2 requirements apply to this area.

With respect to the 8-hour standard, EPA proposes to determine that the
West Virginia’s SIP meets all applicable SIP requirements under Part D
of the CAA, because no 8-hour ozone standard Part D requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation became due prior to submission
of the Weirton redesignation request.  Because the State of West
Virginia submitted a complete redesignation request for Weirton prior to
the deadline for any submissions required under the 8-hour standard, we
have determined that the Part D requirements do not apply to Weirton for
the purposes of redesignation.

In addition to the fact that Part D requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the
redesignation request, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the
general conformity and NSR requirements as not requiring approval prior
to redesignation.

With respect to section 176, Conformity Requirements, section 176(c) of
the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure
that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP.  The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal
Transit Act (“transportation conformity”) as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”).
State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) since state conformity rules
are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules
apply where state rules have not been approved.  See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.
3d 426, 438-440 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation.  See
also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not comply
with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without Part D NSR in effect, because PSD requirements will
apply after redesignation.  The rationale for this view is described in
a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D NSR Requirements
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.”  West Virginia has
demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard without
Part D NSR in effect in Weirton, and therefore, West Virginia need not
have a fully approved Part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request.  West Virginia’s SIP-approved PSD program will
become effective in Weirton upon redesignation to attainment.  See
rulemakings for Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-70, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, Michigan
(61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

E.  Maintenance Plan for Weirton

1.  Maintenance Plan Requirements

A maintenance plan is a SIP revision that provides maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after redesignation.  A
maintenance plan consists of the following requirements as outlined in
section 175A of the CAA: (a) an attainment inventory; (b) a maintenance
demonstration; (c) a monitoring network; (d) verification of continued
attainment; and, (e) a contingency plan.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (a)  Attainment Inventory - An attainment
inventory includes the emissions during the time period associated with
the monitoring data showing attainment.  An attainment year of 2004 was
used for Weirton since it is a reasonable year within the 3-year block
of 2002-2004 and accounts for reductions attributable to implementation
of the CAA requirements to date.

The WVDEP prepared comprehensive VOC and NOx emissions inventories for
Weirton, including point, area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources for a base year of 2002.

To develop the NOx and VOC base year emissions inventories, WVDEP used
the following approaches and sources of data:

(i) Point source emissions - West Virginia maintains its point source
emissions inventory data on the i-STEPS database, which is commercial
software.  Facilities subject to emissions inventory reporting
requirements were those operating point sources subject to Title V
permitting requirements.  Affected sources were identified from the
WVDEP’s Regulation 30 database, which is maintained by the WVDEP’s
Title V Permitting Group.  For the 2002 inventory, diskettes were
populated with i-STEPS software information, as well as source-specific
data from the previous year and sent to facilities for updates of their
2002 activity and emissions data.  The facilities then sent the
diskettes back to the State where WVDEP staff quality assured the data
and submitted it to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) site as well as
to contractors for the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), a Regional Planning Organization
(RPO).

It should be noted that there are no EGUs in Brooke or Hancock Counties
so documentation of procedures for developing ozone season weekday
emissions employed in other West Virginia redesgination requests is
unnecessary here.

A review of the point source data during this redesignation request
indicated anomalous VOC emissions from Mittal Steel (formerly ISG
Weirton 54 029 00001) were significantly higher than expected from a
steel mill.  A small amount of VOCs are typically released from cold
rolling operations because oils are often used for lubrication.
However, a disproportionately large value appeared in the inventory.
Detailed examination of the data revealed that an unsupported emission
factor had been applied even though a source test emission factor was
available.  The Mittal Steel representative was contacted and agreed
that the source test-based emission factor was more appropriate.
Therefore, WVDEP staff recalculated emissions using the source test
emission factor for the units that had been originally estimated with
the unsupported emissions factor.

The activity values used to calculate emissions from the relevant cold
rolling mills were annual values.  Therefore, to derive ozone summer
weekday emissions the WVDEP applied procedures outlined in the EPA’s
Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse (EMCH) Memorandum “Temporal
Allocation of Annual Emissions Using EMCH Temporal Files” (4/29/2002).
 The memorandum described using the Pre CAIR Data file “Source
Classification Code/Temporal Allocation Cross Reference File.”  That
file, however, was superceded by the CAIR Platform Data, also located on
the EMCH Webpage.  The “Temporal Cross Reference File for CAIR
Platform – MS Excel” and “Temporal Profile – CAIR Platform –
MS Excel” files were downloaded and used instead.  The WVDEP followed
the memorandum’s instructions using the CAIR Platform Excel
spreadsheets to calculate the allocation factors to derive the summer
weekday values.  For both NOx and VOC, the default monthly and weekly
allocation factors for a summer weekday were used on a SCC by SCC basis
to develop the summer weekday estimates.  The temporal profile usage
memorandum and CAIR Platform data can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/temporal/index.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/temporal/index.html

(ii) Area source emissions - In order to calculate the area source
emissions inventory the WVDEP took the annual values from the VISTAS
base year inventory and derived the typical ozone summer weekday, using
procedures outlined in the EPA’s Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse
(EMCH) Memorandum, “Temporal Allocation of Annual Emissions Using EMCH
Temporal Profiles, April 29, 2002.”  This enabled WVDEP to arrive at
the “typical” summer day emissions.

(iii) On-road mobile source emissions - VISTAS developed 2002 on-road
mobile (highway) emissions inventory data based on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) updates provided by WVDEP.  VISTAS also estimated future
emissions based upon expected growth for the future years 2009 and 2018.
 However, federal Transportation Conformity requirements dictate that
the WVDEP consult with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
responsible for transportation planning in developing SIP revisions
which may establish MVEBs.  This applies to the maintenance plan
submitted by WVDEP on August 3, 2006.  Therefore, the WVDEP has
consulted with the Weirton MPO, Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan
Planning Comission (BHJ), as well as the West Virginia Department of
Transportation (WVDOT) and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT),
to develop state MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of the
nonattainment area.  The Travel Demand Model (TDM) is maintained by ODOT
for BHJ in cooperation with WVDOT.

The ODOT provides base year and projection emissions data consistent
with their most recent available TDM results along with EPA’s most
recent emission factor model, MOBILE6.2.  Those estimates included NOx
and VOC emissions for the following years, 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018.
The WVDEP also consulted with BHJ, WVDOT and ODOT to develop state MVEBs
for VOC and NOx.

The BHJ must evaluate future Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) and
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) to ensure that the associated
emissions are equal to or less then the final emissions budgets.  The
budgets are designed to facilitate a positive conformity determination
while ensuring overall maintenance of the 8-hour NAAQS.  It should be
noted that the MVEBs and budgets only represent the Weirton (Brooke and
Hancock Counties) portion of the nonattainment area.

(iv) Mobile non-road emissions –  Emissions for the 2002 inventory
from nonroad sources were estimated in two steps.  First, emissions for
nonroad source categories that are included in the NONROAD model were
developed.  Second, emissions from sources not included in the NONROAD
model were estimated.

The 2002 mobile non-road emissions inventory was developed by WVDEP
staff using the NONROAD2005b Model.  NONROAD estimates fuel consumption
and emissions of total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter for all nonroad mobile source
categories except for aircraft, locomotives, and commercial marine
vessels (CMV).

The 2004 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions for the Area are
summarized along with the 2009 and 2018 projected emissions for this
area in table 6, which covers the demonstration of maintenance for this
area.  EPA has concluded that West Virginia has adequately derived and
documented the 2004 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions for this area.

(b) Maintenance Demonstration

(1) 8-Hour NAAQS

The submittal by WVDEP consists of the maintenance plan as required by
section 175A of the CAA.  The Weirton plan shows maintenance of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that current and future emissions of
VOC and NOx remain at or below the attainment year 2004 emissions levels
throughout Weirton through the year 2018.  The Weirton maintenance
demonstration need not be based on modeling.  See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25430-32
(May 12, 2003).

Table 6 specifies the Area’s VOC and NOx emissions for 2004, 2009, and
2018.  The West Virginia DEP and Ohio EPA chose 2009 as an interim year
in the 12-year maintenance demonstration period to demonstrate that the
VOC and NOx emissions are not projected to increase above the 2004
attainment level during the time of the 12-year maintenance period.

Table 6:  Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Nonattainment Area Summary of
Emissions
                        (All emissions in tpd for an ozone season day)

 	Emissions in tpd

	2004	2009	2018

	WV1	OH2	Total	WV1	OH2	Total 	WV1	OH2	Total

Point 	NOx	4.5	154.7	159.2	5.1	66.4	71.5	5.6	41.0	46.6

	VOC	4.8	1.1	5.9	4.3	1.2	5.5	5.3	1.2	6.5

Area	NOx	4.8	0.2	5.0	4.9	0.2	5.1	5.2	0.2	5.4

	VOC	4.6	3.1	7.6	4.5	2.9	7.4	5.2	2.9	8.1

Nonroad3	NOx	5.3	2.3	7.6	3.8	1.9	5.7	3.2	1.6	4.8

	VOC	1.5	0.9	2.4	1.2	0.9	2.1	1.0	0.6	1.6

MVEBs4	NOx	3.6	5.4	9.0	2.8	4.1	6.9	1.2	1.7	2.9

	VOC	2.6	3.5	6.2	2.0	2.6	4.6	1.0	1.4	2.4

Total5	NOx	18.2	162.6	180.7	16.6	72.6	89.2	15.2	49.9	65.1

	VOC	13.5	8.7	22.2	12.0	7.6	19.6	12.5	6.1	18.6

1 WV emissions are total emissions for Brooke and Hancock Counties in
West Virginia

2 OH emissions are total emissions for Jefferson County in Ohio, as
provided by Ohio EPA (see Appendix E of the state submittal)

3 Nonroad includes nonroad model results plus Commercial Marine Vessels,
Railroad and Airports

4 MVEBs for 2004 are actual; budgets established for 2009 and 2018
include 15% reallocation from the safety margin

5 Sums may not total exactly due to rounding

Additionally, the following mobile programs are either effective or due
to become effective and will further contribute to the maintenance
demonstration of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS:

Heavy duty diesel on-road (2004/2007) and low-sulfur on-road (2006); 66
FR 2001 (January 18, 2001); and

Non-road emissions standards (2008) and off-road diesel fuel
(2007/2010); 69 FR 39858 (June 29, 2004).

In addition to the permanent and enforceable measures, CAIR, promulgated
May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161) should have positive impacts on West Virginia
and Ohio’s air quality.  CAIR, which will be implemented in the
eastern portion of the country in two phases (2009 and 2015), should
reduce long range transport of ozone precursors, which will have a
beneficial effect on air quality in the Area.

Currently, West Virginia has adopted rules to address CAIR through state
rules 45CSR39, 45CSR40, and 45CSR41, which require annual and ozone
season NOx reductions from EGUs and ozone season NOx reductions from
non-EGUs.  These rules were submitted to EPA as a SIP revision by
September 11, 2006 as required in the May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161) Federal
Register publication.

(2)  1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

The Area was designated attainment/unclassifiable with respect to the
1-hour ozone standard in 1991.  See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

(c)  Monitoring Network - There is currently two monitors measuring
ozone in the Area, one in Hancock County, West Virginia and one in
Jefferson County, Ohio.  West Virginia has committed to continue to
operate its current air quality monitor (located in Ohio County) in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

(d)  Verification of Continued Attainment - The State of West Virginia
has the legal authority to implement and enforce specified measures
necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS.  Additionally, Federal
programs such as Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule, 2007 On-Road Diesel
Engine Rule, and Federal Non-road Engine/Equipment Rules will continue
to be implemented on a national level.  These programs help provide the
reductions necessary for the Area to maintain attainment.

In addition to maintaining the key elements of its regulatory program,
West Virginia requires ambient and source emissions data to track
attainment and maintenance.  The WVDEP proposes to fully update its
point, area, and mobile emission inventories at 3-year intervals as
required by the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) to assure
that its growth projections relative to emissions in these areas are
sufficiently accurate to assure ongoing attainment with the NAAQS.  The
WVDEP will review stationary source VOC and NOx emissions by review of
annual emissions statements and by update of its emissions inventories.
The area source inventory will be updated using the same techniques as
the 2002 ozone inventory.  However, some source categories may be
updated using historic activity levels determined from Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) data or West Virginia University/Regional
Research Institute (WVU/RRI) population estimates.  The mobile source
inventory model will be updated by obtaining county-level VMT from the
WVDOT for the subject year and calculating emissions using the latest
approved MOBILE model.  Alternatively, the motor vehicle emissions may
be obtained in consultation with the MPO, BHJ, using methodology similar
to that used for Transportation Conformity purposes.  The WVDEP shall
also continue to operate the existing ozone monitoring station in the
areas pursuant to 40 CFR part 58 throughout the maintenance period and
submit quality-assured ozone data to EPA through the AQS system.

(e) The Maintenance Plan’s Contingency Measures - The contingency plan
provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation.  Section 175A of the Act requires that
a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to ensure that the State will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.  The maintenance plan should
identify the events that would “trigger” the adoption and
implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the measure(s).

The ability of Weirton to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard after redesignation depends upon VOC and NOx emissions in the
area remaining at or below 2004 levels.  The State’s maintenance plan
projects VOC and NOx emissions to decrease and stay below 2004 levels
through the year 2018.  The State’s maintenance plan lays out two
situations where the need to adopt and implement a contingency measure
to further reduce emissions would be triggered.  Those situations are as
follows:

(i) If the triennial inventories indicate significant emissions growth
above the 2004 maintenance base-year inventory or if a monitored air
quality exceedance pattern indicates that an ozone NAAQS violation may
be imminent – Then WVDEP will evaluate existing control measures to
ascertain if additional regulatory revisions are necessary to maintain
the ozone standard.  The maintenance plan also states that an exceedance
pattern would include, but is not limited to, the measurement of five
exceendances or more occurring at the same monitor during a calendar
year.

(ii) In the event that a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard occurs
at the Hancock County, West Virginia or the Jefferson County, Ohio
monitor - The maintenance plan states that in the event that a violation
of the ozone standard occurs at either the Hancock County, West Virginia
or Jefferson County ozone monitor, the State of West Virginia in
consultation with EPA will select and adopt one or more of the following
measures to assure continued attainment:

Extend the applicability of 45CSR21 (VOC/RACT rule) to include source
categories previously excluded (e.g., waste water treatment facilities);

Revised new source permitting requirements requiring more stringent
emissions control technology and/or emissions offsets;

NOx RACT requirements if necessary;

Regulations to establish plant-wide emissions caps (potentially with
emissions trading provisions);

Stage II Vapor Recovery regulations;

Establish a Public Awareness/Ozone Action Day Program, a two pronged
program focusing on increasing the public’s understanding of air
quality issues in the region and increasing support for actions to
improve the air quality, resulting in reduced emissions on days when the
ozone levels are likely to be high.

Initiate one or more of the following voluntary local control measures:

(1) Bicycle and Pedestrian Measures - A series of measures designed to
promote bicycling and walking including both promotional activities and
enhancing the environment for these activities;

(2) Reduce Engine Idling - Voluntary programs to restrict heavy duty
diesel engine idling times for both trucks and school buses;

(3) Voluntary Partnership with Ground Freight Industry - A voluntary
program using incentives to encourage the ground freight industry to
reduce emissions;

 (4) Increase Compliance with Open Burning Restrictions - Increase
public awareness of the existing open burning restrictions and work with
communities to increase compliance; and

(5) School Bus Engine Retrofit Program - Have existing school bus
engines retrofitted to lower emissions.

The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the contingency measures concerning the option of
implementing regulatory requirements.

Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of occurrence;

Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification of a monitored
ozone standard violation;

Develop draft rule within 6 months of selection of measure;

File draft rule as an emergency rule with Secretary of State’s Office
(process takes up to 42 days);

Applicable regulation to be fully implemented with in 6 months after
adoption.

The following schedule for adoption, implementation and compliance
applies to the voluntary contingency measures.

Confirmation of the monitored violation within 45 days of occurrence;

Measure to be selected within 3 months after verification of a monitored
ozone standard violation;

Initiation of program development with local governments within Weirton
by the start of the following ozone season.

(f) An Additional Provision of the Maintenance Plan - The State’s
maintenance plan for Weirton has an additional provision.  That
provision states that based on the 2002 inventory data and calculation
methodology, it is expected that area and mobile source emissions will
not exhibit substantial increases between consecutive periodic year
inventories.  Therefore, if significant unanticipated emissions growth
occurs, it is expected that point sources would be the cause.  40 CFR
Part 51, the CERR (67 FR 39602) requires that states submit an annual
inventory of criteria pollutants for large pint sources with actual
emissions greater than or equal to any of the emission thresholds to
EPA.  Any significant increases that occur can be identified from these
reports without waiting for a periodic inventory.  This gives West
Virginia the capability to identify needed regulations by source, source
category and pollutant and to begin the rule promulgation process, if
necessary, in an expeditious manner.

The maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a
maintenance plan:  attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan.  EPA believes that the maintenance plan SIP revision
submitted by West Virginia for Weirton meets the requirements of section
175A of the Act.

2.  Requirement for Continued Maintenance

Section 175A(b) of the CAA will also require the State of West Virginia
to submit a revision to the SIP eight years after the original
redesignation request is approved to provide for maintenance of the
NAAQS in Weirton for total of 20 years following redesignation to
attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS.  West Virginia commits to this SIP
revision.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:

Weirton has met the criteria for a maintenance plan that satisfies
section 175A and for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Also, the Area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality
monitoring data from AQS.  Therefore, I recommend that the maintenance
plan for Weirton be approved and the area be redesignated to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV.  LIST OF EPA GUIDANCE MEMOS AND DOCUMENTS

“Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations”, Memorandum
from Bill   Laxton, June 18, 1990;

“Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

“Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,” Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;

“State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;

“Technical Support Documents (TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;

“State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management
Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Use of Actual
Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and CO Nonattainment
Areas,” dated November 30, 1993;

“Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and

“Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

1   For information of the recodification of the RACT rules approved by
the September 17, 1992 final rule that is cited in the notices related
to redesignation of the Area, see 60 FR 6022 at 6022, February 1, 1995.

  PAGE   3

  PAGE   16

  PAGE   18

  PAGE   21


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4172-4173]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-853-000]

Saint Energy Storage II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Saint Energy Storage II, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 7, 2023.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01301 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67812-67813]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: November 15, 2012. 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATON: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

987TH--MEETING

Regular Meeting

November 15, 2012, 10 a.m.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Item No.                 Docket No.            Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Administrative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1...........................  AD02-1-000.......  Agency Business
                                                    Matters.
A-2...........................  AD02-7-000.......  Customer Matters,
                                                    Reliability,
                                                    Security and Market
                                                    Operations.
A-3...........................  AD06-3-000.......  2013 Winter
                                                    Assessment.
A-4...........................  AD07-13-005......  2012 Report on
                                                    Enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Electric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1...........................  ER12-480-001,      Midwest Independent
                                 ER12-480-002.      Transmission System
                                                    Operator, Inc.
E-2...........................  EL12-103-000.....  J.P. Morgan Ventures
                                                    Energy Corporation.
E-3...........................  RM11-26-000......  Promoting
                                                    Transmission
                                                    Investment Through
                                                    Pricing Reform.
E-4...........................  RM10-11-001......  Integration of
                                                    Variable Energy
                                                    Resources.
E-5...........................  RM12-3-000.......  Revisions to Electric
                                                    Quarterly Report
                                                    Filing Process.
E-6...........................  OMITTED..........  .....................
E-7...........................  OMITTED..........  .....................
E-8...........................  ER11-4214-001,     PacifiCorp.
                                 ER11-4214-000.
E-9...........................  ER12-469-000,      PJM Interconnection,
                                 ER12-469-001.      L.L.C.
E-10..........................  ER05-1056-006....  Chehalis Power
                                                    Generating, L.P.
E-11..........................  OMITTED..........  .....................
E-12..........................  EL12-89-000......  The Incorporated
                                                    Village of Port
                                                    Jefferson v.
                                                    National Grid
                                                    Generation LLC.
E-13..........................  OMITTED..........  .....................
E-14..........................  ER12-1753-000....  Wyoming Colorado
                                                    Intertie, LLC.
E-15..........................  EL12-87-000......  Los Angeles
                                                    Department of Water
                                                    and Power v.
                                                    PacifiCorp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Miscellaneous
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M-1...........................  AD12-12-000......  Coordination Between
                                                    Natural Gas and
                                                    Electricity Markets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1...........................  RP13-184-000.....  Wyoming Interstate
                                                    Company, L.L.C.
G-2...........................  RP13-185-000.....  Viking Gas
                                                    Transmission
                                                    Company.
G-3...........................  RM13-1-000.......  Enhanced Natural Gas
                                                    Market Transparency.
G-4...........................  RP10-951-000.....  Texas Gas Service
                                                    Company, a Division
                                                    of ONEOK, Inc. v. El
                                                    Paso Natural Gas
                                                    Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hydro
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1...........................  P-2165-030.......  Alabama Power
                                                    Company.
H-2...........................  P-2479-012.......  Pacific Gas and
                                                    Electric Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Certificates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1...........................  CP11-546-000.....  Panhandle Eastern
                                                    Pipe Line Company,
                                                    LP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued November 8, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public

may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement
is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow
Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission
headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection
service.

[FR Doc. 2012-27709 Filed 11-9-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45520]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1089-000.
    Applicants: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.
    Description: GPPL Order 776 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130723-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceeding

    Docket Numbers: RP13-886-001.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C..
    Description: Rate Case Settlement--2013 Implementation to be
effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130719-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/13.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 23, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18117 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P