[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20901-20909]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 38

[Docket No. RM05-5-017; Order No. 676-F]

Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for
Public Utilities

Issued April 15, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 to incorporate by reference
business practice standards adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant
of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to categorize
various demand response products and services and to support the
measurement and verification of these products and services in
wholesale electric energy markets. This rule ensures that participants
in wholesale energy markets where demand response products are
administered receive standardized access to information that will
enable them to participate in those markets and addresses performance
evaluation methods appropriate to use for demand response products.
This rule facilitates the ability of demand response providers to
participate in electricity markets, reducing transaction costs and
providing an opportunity for more customers to participate in these
programs, especially customers that operate in more than one organized
market. It also provides a foundation for further business practice
standardization efforts, and participants in the NAESB process can use
these standards to identify those elements for which standardization
would be beneficial. Further, adoption of measurement and verification
standards will improve the methods and procedures for measuring
accurately the performance of demand response resources and assist in
monitoring demand response services for potential manipulation.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective May 24, 2010.
Dates for implementation of the standards are provided in the Final
Rule. This incorporation by reference of certain publications in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 24,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Irwin (technical issues), Office
of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.

I. Background...............................................          3.
II. Discussion..............................................          9.
    A. Overview.............................................          9.
    B. NAESB Phase I M&V Standards..........................         15.
        1. Adoption of NAESB Phase I M&V Standards..........         15.
        2. Clarification of Jurisdictional Concerns.........         17.

        3. Nomenclature.....................................         21.
    C. Phase II M&V Standards...............................         24.
        1. Proper Organization(s) To Develop Phase II M&V            24.
         Standards..........................................
        2. Guidance on the Scope of the Phase II M&V                 29.
         Standards..........................................
        3. Suggested Improvements to Standards..............         35.
        4. Deadline for Phase II M&V Standards Development..         38.
    D. Incorporation by Reference...........................         42.
III. Implementation Dates and Procedures....................         43.
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards..........         47.
V. Information Collection Statement.........................         48.
VI. Environmental Analysis..................................         54.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................         55.
VIII. Document Availability.................................         58.
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification...........         61.

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip
D. Moeller, and John R. Norris.

Final Rule

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2(a) (which establish standards
for business practices and electronic communications for public
utilities)\1\ to incorporate by reference business practice standards
adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of the North American
Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to categorize various demand response
products and services and to support the measurement and verification
of these products and services in wholesale electric energy markets. We
also take this opportunity to update 18 CFR 38.2(b) to reflect NAESB's
new address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 38.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. These standards identify operational information about demand
response products that system operators need to make available to
participants in markets where such products are offered and address
performance evaluation methods appropriate to use for demand response
products. They also facilitate the ability of demand response providers
to participate in electricity markets, reducing transaction costs and
providing an opportunity for more customers to participate in these
programs, especially customers that operate in more than one organized
market. In addition, these standards provide a foundation for further
business practice standardization efforts, which participants in
NAESB's WEQ process can use to identify those elements for which
standardization would be beneficial. Further, adoption of measurement
and verification standards will improve the methods and procedures for
measuring accurately the performance of demand response resources and
assist in monitoring demand response services for potential
manipulation.

I. Background

    3. NAESB is a private consensus standards developer that divides
its activities among four quadrants, each of which is composed of
members from all segments of its respective industry.\2\ NAESB is an
accredited standards organization under the auspices of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). NAESB's procedures are designed to
ensure that all industry members can have input into the development of
a standard, whether or not they are members of NAESB, and each
wholesale electric standard that NAESB's WEQ adopts is supported by a
consensus of the seven industry segments: End Users, Distribution/Load
Serving Entities, Transmission, Generation, Marketers/Brokers,
Independent Grid Operators/Planners and Technology/Services. Under the
WEQ process, for a standard to be approved, it must receive a super-
majority vote of 67 percent of the members of the WEQ's Executive
Committee with support from at least 40 percent of each of the seven
industry segments.\3\ For final approval, 67 percent of the WEQ's
general membership must ratify the standards.\4\ NAESB's standards are
voluntary. However, the Commission has made compliance with these
standards mandatory in those instances where it has incorporated such
standards by reference into its regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The four quadrants are the wholesale and retail electric
quadrants and the wholesale and retail natural gas quadrants.
    \3\ Under NAESB's procedures, interested persons may attend and
participate in NAESB committee meetings, and phone conferences, even
if they are not NAESB members.
    \4\ See Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,216, n.5 (2006), reh'g denied, Order No. 676-A, 116 FERC ] 61,255
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In 2006, the Commission adopted Order No. 676, a Final Rule that
incorporated by reference business practice standards adopted by NAESB
applicable to public utilities.\5\ Since 2006, the NAESB consensus
industry stakeholder process has reviewed the NAESB business practice
standards for public utilities with a view to creating a more efficient
marketplace and it has adopted revisions that, in a number of
instances, the Commission has made mandatory by incorporating the
standards by reference into the Commission's regulations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-E, Final Rule, 74 FR 63288 (Dec.
3, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,299 (2009), Order No. 676-D,
order granting clarification and denying reh'g, 124 FERC ] 61,317
(2008), Order No. 676-C, Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,274
(2008), Order No. 676-B, Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,246
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. NAESB began work on the development of business practice
standards pertaining to the measurement and verification of demand
response products and services in July 2007, when the NAESB WEQ Demand
Side Management--Energy Efficiency (DSM) subcommittee began work on
this issue. This effort led to the adoption and ratification by NAESB
of measurement and verification standards early in 2009. Key to
obtaining consensus on the initial set of standards was the agreement
to proceed with further work on more detailed technical standards for
the measurement and verification of demand response resources.
    6. On April 17, 2009, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission
that it had adopted an initial set of business practice standards to
categorize various demand response products and services and to support
the measurement and verification of these products and services in
wholesale electric energy markets. The NAESB report recognized

that these standards would need to be followed by the development of
more detailed technical standards for the measurement and verification
of demand response products and services in independent system
operator/regional transmission organization (ISO/RTO) footprint areas.
    7. After a review of NAESB's April 2009 Report, the Commission
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 17, 2009 that
proposed to amend the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 to
incorporate by reference the consensus standards adopted by NAESB's WEQ
on March 16, 2009 (NAESB Phase I M&V Standards).\7\ NAESB has initiated
specific plans to improve and adopt additional technical standards
(Phase II M&V Standards).\8\ In the Phase I M&V NOPR, the Commission
specifically requested comments on whether the Commission should
establish a deadline for the development of these remaining critical
standards and, if so, what that deadline should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 74 FR 48173
(Sep. 22, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,646 (2009) (Phase I M&V
NOPR).
    \8\ Item 4a of NAESB's 2010 Annual Plan calls for the WEQ to
review the NAESB Business Practices for Measurement and Verification
of Wholesale Electricity Demand Response (WEQ-015) in conjunction
with the Demand Response Matrix developed by the ISO/RTO Council and
to identify business practice requirements that could be improved or
made clearer through the addition of specific technical detail. The
ISO/RTO Council's 2009 ``North American Wholesale Electricity Demand
Response Program Comparison'' may be viewed at the ISO/RTO Council's
Web site at http://www.isorto.org. The Annual Plan provides that
wholesale and retail demand response work groups and the Smart Grid
task force should actively and timely communicate and coordinate
work products to ensure consistency among the three work groups. The
Annual Plan further provides that each work group should take into
account the work products developed by the other groups.
    Item 4b of NAESB's 2010 Annual Plan calls for the WEQ, using the
ISO/RTO Council's matrix as a starting point, to review each
performance evaluation type/service type combination identified in
WEQ-015 to assess and determine what standards or guidelines, if
any, should be developed to aid all participants in the use of
measurement and verification methods for demand response programs in
organized wholesale electric markets. If the determination is made
that standards or guidelines will be developed, those items will be
added as sub-items to 4(b).
    Item 4c of NAESB's 2010 Annual Plan calls for the WEQ to develop
a glossary of terms used in demand response business practice
standards.
    Item 4d of NAESB's 2010 Annual Plan calls for the WEQ to develop
business practice standards to measure and verify energy reductions
that are made to comply with a Renewable Portfolio Standard that
includes energy efficiency or a stand-alone Energy Efficiency
Portfolio Standard as part of an overall effort to measure and
verify reductions in energy and demand from energy efficiency in
wholesale and retail markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In response to the Phase I M&V NOPR, comments were filed by 19
entities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The entities that filed comments and the abbreviations used
in this Final Rule to identify these entities are listed in Appendix
A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Overview

    9. In this Final Rule, the Commission is revising its regulations
at 18 CFR 38.2 to incorporate by reference the NAESB Phase I M&V
Standards. The new standards will facilitate development of
standardized business practices for measuring and verifying demand
resource products and services for the wholesale electric market. In
addition, they will help create a framework for a more seamless
electronic marketplace by providing consistent terms and definitions
that can be used in electronic protocols across both the wholesale and
retail electric markets. Further, adoption of measurement and
verification standards will improve the methods and procedures for
measuring accurately the performance of demand response resources and
assist in monitoring demand response services for potential
manipulation.
    10. The NAESB Phase I M&V Standards were approved by the WEQ and
ratified by the NAESB membership under NAESB's consensus
procedures.\10\ As the Commission found in Order No. 587,\11\ adoption
of consensus standards is appropriate because the consensus process
helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the
standards draw support from a broad spectrum of industry participants
representing all segments of the industry. Moreover, since the industry
itself has to conduct business under these standards, the Commission's
regulations should reflect those standards that have the widest
possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA), Congress affirmatively requires
federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as a means to carry out
policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies unless use
of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This process first requires a super-majority vote of 67
percent of the members of the WEQ's Executive Committee with support
from at least 40 percent of each of the seven industry segments,
which are enumerated in P 3, supra. For final approval, 67 percent
of the WEQ's general membership voting must ratify the standards.
    \11\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (July 26, 1996), FERC Stats. &
Regs., ] 31,038 (1996).
    \12\ Pub. L. 104-113, Sec.  12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. Sec.  272 note (1997). This requirement is further discussed
at P 48, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The specific NAESB standards that we are incorporating by
reference in this Final Rule are business practices for Measurement and
Verification of Wholesale Electricity Demand Response. The standards
have three sections; the first section (Introduction and Definition of
Terms) contains an overview of the standards and definitions, the
second section (Standards 015-1.0 through 015-1.15) contains standards
on Provision of Wholesale Electric Demand Response Energy, Capacity,
Reserve and Regulation Products, and the third section (Standards 015-
1.16 through 015-1.30) contains standards on the five performance
evaluation methodologies: (1) Maximum Base Load; (2) Meter Before/Meter
After; (3) Baseline Type-I (Interval Meter); (4) Baseline Type-II (Non-
Interval Meter); and (5) Metering Generator Output.
    12. The NAESB Phase I M&V Standards also provide a foundation for
further business practice standardization efforts, and participants in
the WEQ process can use these standards to identify those elements for
which standardization would be beneficial. We believe that development
of the Phase II M&V Standards to which NAESB has committed will help
improve the methods and procedures for measuring accurately the
performance of demand responders. Such standards also will facilitate
the ability of demand response providers to participate in electricity
markets, in particular customers and aggregators that may participate
in multiple markets. Standards for measuring and verifying demand
response can help these customers reduce the transaction costs of
participating in these markets.
    13. Because of the importance of moving forward on the development
and adoption of the Phase II M&V Standards, we urge NAESB to complete
its development of these standards within one year, as discussed below.
If NAESB is unable to meet this goal, we request that it file with the
Commission within one year, a report of the progress it has made, as
well as the areas in which consensus has not been reached.
    14. We address below the issues raised by the commenters.

B. NAESB Phase I M&V Standards

1. Adoption of NAESB Phase I M&V Standards
a. Comments
    15. Nearly all the commenters support the proposal to incorporate
the NAESB Phase I M&V Standards by reference. California Commission,
Comverge, EEI, EnerNOC, EPSA, Indiana Commission, ISO/RTO Council,
NARUC, NRECA, Public Interest Orgs, SDG&E, TVA and Westar all express
support for the proposal. For example, EnerNOC asserts the NAESB Phase
I M&V Standards address a need within the industry to develop
consistent measurement and verification (M&V) practices across the
country. While NRECA and Indiana Commission raised concerns about the
costs of obtaining NAESB standards, addressed below, they did not
oppose the incorporation by reference of the NAESB Phase I M&V
Standards.
b. Commission Determination
    16. The Commission is revising its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 to
incorporate by reference the NAESB Phase I M&V Standards. The new
standards define terms and definitions that can be used to facilitate
communications and provide standards for measurement and verification
methodologies for demand resources in wholesale electric markets.
2. Clarification of Jurisdictional Concerns
    17. As we explained in the Phase I M&V NOPR, the NAESB Phase I M&V
Standards will enhance transparency and consistency in the methodology
used to measure and verify demand response products in wholesale
markets administered by the ISOs and RTOs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Phase I M&V NOPR at P 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Comments
    18. FirstEnergy, the California Commission and NARUC all caution
that these standards are only applicable in the wholesale energy market
and that the states have jurisdiction over retail demand response
programs, meters and infrastructure.
    19. FirstEnergy argues that the Commission's involvement in demand
response activities must continue to acknowledge that the states have
jurisdiction in retail markets. Similarly, NARUC states that the
Commission should continue to work closely with the states to outline
jurisdictional boundaries with respect to the standards being proposed
in the NAESB process.
b. Commission Determination
    20. We agree with the commenters that the NAESB Phase I M&V
Standards that we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule are
applicable to wholesale energy markets under the Commission's
jurisdiction and nothing in this Final Rule is intended to interfere
with the states' jurisdiction over retail demand response programs.
3. Nomenclature
    21. The NAESB Phase I M&V Standards include 40 definitions. These
definitions ``identify basic product categories, i.e., energy service,
capacity service, reserve service and regulation service. They identify
the measurement and verification characteristics of demand response
products and services offered in organized wholesale electricity
markets, such as reduction deadlines, advance notification
instructions, telemetry accuracy, and communication protocols.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at P 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Comments
    22. ELCON suggests in several instances that the definition
included in the NAESB Phase I M&V Standards should be revised to add
more specificity. For example, it would add further operating
characteristics to the definitions of Normal Operations, Recovery
Period and Demand Resource Availability Measurement.\15\ Additionally,
ELCON suggests several edits and clarifications to these same terms and
to the definition of Triggering Events and Telemetry.\16\ EPSA,
likewise, asserts the standards in their current form do not provide
enough detail to ensure demand response resources receive comparable
treatment to those of other resources.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ELCON Comments at 4-7.
    \16\ Id. at 5.
    \17\ EPSA Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    23. We find the definitions included in the NAESB Phase I M&V
Standards adequate for the purposes of Phase I and we will incorporate
them by reference as proposed in the Phase I M&V NOPR. Also, as we
noted above, item 4c of the WGQ 2010 Action Plan is devoted to the
formulation of a glossary of demand response terminology. ELCON and
EPSA may pursue their concerns about the need for greater specificity
in the definition of demand response terms by continuing their
participation in the NAESB process.

C. Phase II M&V Standards

1. Proper Organization(s) to Develop Phase II M&V Standards
a. Comments
    24. Nearly all the comments support NAESB as the proper
organization to develop the Phase II M&V Standards.\18\ For example,
ISO/RTO Council asserts the NAESB process has been an effective way to
bring demand response organizations together to create the NAESB Phase
I M&V Standards. Comverge commends the efforts of NAESB to develop this
initial set of standards. EPSA also supports the NAESB process and
notes the ANSI-certified consensus-based approach is an effective means
to craft standards. Comverge expresses appreciation to NAESB for its
efforts and is supportive of its efforts that ensure increased demand
response participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supporting comments on this subject by Comverge,
Curtailment Specialists, EEI, EPSA, ISO/RTO Council, NARUC and
Westar. FirstEnergy also supports these efforts, although it
cautions that we need to keep jurisdictional concerns in mind. See
discussion at P 18-19, supra. TVA also stresses the need for the
proper coordination of efforts. See P 39, infra. The objections of
Industrial Coalitions on its preference for the Commission
developing all standards are discussed in P 42, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. By contrast, Duke is the sole commenter raising an objection to
the continuing role of NAESB in developing the Phase II M&V Standards.
Duke contends that the ISOs and RTOs are in a better position to
develop these standards, due to regional differences.
b. Commission Determination
    26. In our view, NAESB is best suited to develop these common Phase
II M&V Standards. The NAESB DSM subcommittee has the membership and
participation of demand response providers, ISOs, RTOs, public
utilities and trade groups.
    27. The continued cooperation and efforts of all these participants
in the NAESB Phase II M&V Standards process will create an environment
conducive to creating transparent and consistent standards for the
measurement and verification of demand response resources offered into
wholesale electricity markets. Furthermore, the efforts of a single
group sponsored by NAESB will allow for more efficient participation in
the standards development process and will help provide greater
consistency than might be possible from the individual efforts
sponsored by six separate regional organizations.
    28. Improvement in measurement and verification standards will work
to ensure that the performance of demand

response resources can be accurately quantified. Standardization of
measurement and verification methods also will help to reduce costs for
customers participating in multiple markets. Without consistent
standards, customers and demand response providers that participate in
more than one RTO or ISO would then have to incur the costs of
developing different business processes to adapt to the differing RTO/
ISO requirements, increasing the cost and complexity of their business.
Furthermore, the Phase II M&V Standards should help achieve greater
efficiency in the operation and evaluation of the performance of demand
response products and services.
2. Guidance on the Scope of the Phase II M&V Standards
a. Comments
    29. Many of the commenters find that NAESB's development of Phase
II M&V Standards and the Commission's incorporation by reference of
such standards will have the benefit of creating additional consistency
and standardization across markets. These same commenters also noted
the benefits to adoption of a common terminology for M&V methods. For
example, Public Interest Orgs supports the standardization of M&V
business rules and asserts that such standardization will increase
participation, eliminate gaming opportunities and enable aggregators to
overcome varying business practices. EPSA also finds benefit in the
Commission acting to reduce needless and costly disparities among the
ISOs and RTOs, but is concerned that the standards provide too much
deference to ISO/RTO policies and that this will hinder efforts to
standardize demand response rules. ELCON does not object to the role of
NAESB in developing the Phase II M&V Standards, but finds that the
process needs improvement in Phase II so that the concerns of demand
response providers are given more consideration and the views of ISOs
and RTOs are given less deference.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ELCON Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. SDG&E supports the adoption of standards that promote
transparency and consistency across markets. SDG&E further states that
adopting consistent standards across ISOs and RTOs could reduce
barriers to demand response providers who operate in multiple markets.
Industrial Coalitions states the standardization of demand response
practices across power markets will improve their business
objectives.\20\ Comverge supports Phase II M&V Standards that would
simplify baseline approaches and expand the deployment of demand
response. ISO/RTO Council notes approvingly that the use of common
terminology has accelerated the development of retail standards as well
as supported development of other demand response initiatives. TVA
states that NAESB's Phase II M&V Standards efforts should concentrate
on the measurement and verification of demand response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Industrial Coalitions members include: Coalition of Midwest
Transmission Customers; NEPOOL Industrial Customer Coalition; and
PJM Industrial Customer Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Both Duke and FirstEnergy request guidance as to the content of
the Phase II M&V Standards and what information is needed to facilitate
and promote demand response in markets.
b. Commission Determination
    32. While NAESB's Phase I M&V Standards represent a good first
step, additional substantive standards would appear beneficial in
creating transparent and consistent measurement and verification of
demand response products and services in wholesale electric markets.
The measurement and verification standards needed to accomplish this
goal should be a focus of NAESB's Phase II M&V Standards development
efforts.
    33. While the development of the Phase II M&V Standards should be
an industry-driven consensus-seeking process, we agree with commenters
that more detailed measurement and verification standards will reduce
costs for customers and market participants, particularly those
participating in multiple markets. As discussed earlier, demand
response providers that participate in more than one RTO or ISO should
not have to incur the costs of developing different business processes
to adapt to the differing RTO/ISO requirements, increasing the cost and
complexity of their business.
    34. In response to Duke's and FirstEnergy's requests for additional
guidance as to the content of the Phase II M&V Standards, we agree with
NAESB's plan to start the process by reviewing the elements of the
performance evaluation methods detailed in the ISO/RTO Council's demand
response program matrix. While we do not expect NAESB to develop a
single performance evaluation method, we reiterate that greater
standardization of the performance evaluation methods will improve the
accuracy of measuring and verifying demand response performance and may
reduce costs. ELCON expresses concern that the views of RTOs and ISOs
will be given greater consideration than those of other participants in
the NAESB process. As discussed earlier, the NAESB process requires
consensus agreement from all seven segments of the industry and no
segment, therefore, can dominate the development of a standard. We
expect the participants in the NAESB process actively to consider and
be open to proposals and concerns from any source and to try to
reconcile differences so that the standards promote accurate
measurement and verification of the performance of demand resources.
3. Suggested Improvements to Standards
    35. In the Phase I M&V NOPR, the Commission stated that these
standards represent a starting place to develop a more comprehensive
set of standards, with the development of more detailed technical
standards for the measurement and verification of demand response
resources, to take place in the Phase II M&V Standards development
process.
    36. A few of the commenters have raised some specific concerns that
they would like addressed in the Phase II M&V Standards development
process. For example, ELCON complains that the NAESB process gives too
much weight to the views of ISOs and RTOs and argues that the standards
place specific requirements on demand response providers while not
spelling out the complementary obligations of system operators. ELCON
would like this corrected in the Phase II M&V Standards process.\21\
Water Project stresses that the Phase II M&V Standards should be
designed to accurately verify the performance of demand response
resources according to the specific service they are providing.
Curtailment Specialists suggests the DSM subcommittee concentrate its
efforts on developing the five baseline types; Baseline Type-I and
Type-II, Meter Before/Meter After, Maximum Base Load and Metering
Generator Output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ELCON Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Commission Determination
    37. As discussed above, the NAESB process provides for a reasonable
balance of interests so that no one sector, RTOs or any other sector,
can dominate the process. We agree that the process needs to consider
the issues and views of the participants. We expect the NAESB process
to develop Phase II M&V standards which incorporate the interests of
all stakeholders in the process of developing consensus standards. In
response to Curtailment Specialists, we expect Phase II will address
issues related to baseline

development, but we do not believe that Phase II should be limited to
baseline development issues alone.
4. Deadline for Phase II M&V Standards Development
    38. In the Phase I M&V NOPR, the Commission invited comment on
whether the Commission should establish a deadline to complete the
Phase II M&V Standards. The comments we received were split on this
issue.
a. Comments
    39. ELCON strongly supports a deadline for the development of the
Phase II M&V Standards.\22\ EPSA and TVA support a deadline that should
take into consideration efforts underway at the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST) for both demand response and Smart Grid
activities. Similarly, FirstEnergy recommends that the Commission
coordinate its efforts with those of NERC, NIST and the Electric Power
Research Institute. EPSA also supports prompt action and notes that
NERC is in the process of developing demand response measurement
standards through its Demand Response Availability Data System (DADS).
EPSA expresses concern that a long delay in the Phase II M&V Standards
development process may hinder NERC's demand response registration
processes. Likewise, Comverge and EnerNOC also both support an
aggressive deadline for the timely completion of the Phase II M&V
Standards development process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ELCON Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. By contrast, ISO/RTO Council, FirstEnergy, EEI, SDG&E, NRECA
and the Indiana Commission all oppose a deadline. They all argue that
setting a deadline would be premature and contend that the NAESB
process should be allowed to run its course. Many of these commenters,
however, agree that, absent a deadline, it would be appropriate for
NAESB to provide the Commission with regular status reports on the
progress made in the development of the Phase II M&V Standards.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See comments by FirstEnergy, EEI, Indiana Commission and
ISO/RTO Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    41. We request that NAESB seek to conclude its Phase II M&V
Standards development within one year from the effective date of this
order. In light of the importance of measuring and verifying demand
response products, as well as the utility of these standards to the
NIST and NERC initiatives, the Phase II M&V Standards should be
developed as soon as possible. Prompt action in developing the Phase II
M&V Standards is essential, in light of the importance of these
standards in ensuring that the performance of demand response resources
can be accurately quantified. A year for development of such standards
is reasonable. Due to the importance of these standards, if NAESB is
unable to fully develop standards within the one-year period, we
request that it file a report with the Commission indicating the
progress it has made, including the standards it has considered and the
issues on which it has been unable to reach consensus. The Commission
can then build upon the information developed during the NAESB process
to propose standards or establish procedures for the development of
such standards.

D. Incorporation by Reference

    42. A number of organizations (Industrial Coalitions, NRECA, and
the Indiana Commission) filed comments objecting to the incorporation
by reference of the NAESB standards, maintaining they should not have
to pay to obtain copies of the copyrighted standards. We addressed this
issue at length in Order No. 676-E \24\ in November of 2009, concluding
that the NAESB process is the most efficient and cost-effective method
of developing these standards, incorporation by reference is the
appropriate method for the Commission to adopt the regulations, and the
Commission must respect NAESB's copyright.\25\ As we pointed out in
that order, obtaining these standards is not cost prohibitive. NAESB,
in fact, makes the standards available for free for three consecutive
business days for those who want to view the standards in order to make
comments with the Commission.\26\ Even for those non-members seeking to
purchase a copy, the standards are available for $900, which is not
prohibitive, given the costs of otherwise participating in a notice and
comment rulemaking proceeding, including the hiring of legal counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,299 at P 115-121.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ http://www.naesb.org/misc/NAESB_Nonmember_Evaluation_
LockLizard.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Implementation Dates and Procedures

    43. The Commission is requiring, consistent with our regulation at
18 CFR 35.28(c)(vi), each ISO and RTO to revise its OATT to include the
NAESB Phase I M&V Standards we are incorporating by reference herein.
For standards that do not require implementing tariff provisions, the
Commission will allow the ISO or RTO to incorporate the WEQ standard by
reference in its OATT. Compliance with the standards incorporated in
this Final Rule will be required beginning on the same date that the
rule becomes effective (i.e., thirty days after publication in the
Federal Register), even if this precedes the filing of a revised OATT
reflecting these new requirements.
    44. However, as we proposed in the Phase I M&V NOPR, to lighten the
burden associated with an immediate, stand-alone filing of a revised
tariff reflecting the standards incorporated by reference in this Final
Rule, we are giving ISOs and RTOs the option of including these changes
as part of an unrelated tariff filing, even though compliance with the
revised standards is required beginning on the effective date of this
Final Rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Order No. 676, P 100 (2006). If the ISO or RTO makes no
unrelated tariff filing by December 31, 2010, it must make a
separate tariff filing incorporating these standards by that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. If adoption of these standards does not require any changes or
revisions to existing OATT provisions, ISOs and RTOs may comply with
this rule by adding a provision to their OATTs that incorporates the
standards adopted in this rule by reference, including the standard
number used to identify the standard. To incorporate this standard into
their OATTs, ISOs and RTOs must use the following language in their
OATTs: Measurement and Verification of Wholesale Electricity Demand
Response (WEQ-015, 2008 Annual Plan Item 5(a), March 16, 2009).
    46. If an ISO or RTO requests waiver of a standard, it will not be
required to comply with the standard until the Commission acts on its
waiver request. Therefore, if an ISO or RTO has obtained a waiver or
has a pending request for a waiver, its proposed revision to its OATT
should not include the standard number associated with the standard for
which it has obtained or seeks a waiver. Instead, the ISO or RTO's OATT
should specify those standards for which the ISO or RTO has obtained a
waiver or has pending a request for waiver. Once a waiver request is
denied, the ISO or RTO will be required to include in its OATT the
standard(s) for which waiver was denied.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    47. In section 12(d) of NTT&AA, Congress affirmatively requires
federal

agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus
standards organizations, like NAESB, as the means to carry out policy
objectives or activities determined by the agencies unless use of such
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.\28\ NAESB approved the standards under its consensus
procedures. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (Sec.  11)
(February 10, 1998) provides that federal agencies should publish a
request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or
revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus standard
or a government-unique standard. The Commission published a request for
comment in the Phase I M&V NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See n.12 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

    48. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations in 5
CFR 1320.11 require that it approve certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. Upon
approval of collections of information, OMB is expected to assign new
expiration dates to FERC-516 (OMB Control Number 1902-0096) and FERC-
717 (OMB Control Number 1902-0173). The OMB Control Numbers will not be
displayed in the NAESB standards; an explanation will be included in
the clearance package submitted to OMB. The Commission will not enforce
the requirements of this rule until OMB approval is obtained.
    49. This Final Rule upgrades the Commission's current business
practice and communication standards to include NAESB's Phase I M&V
Standards. The implementation of these standards is necessary to
increase the efficiency of demand response in wholesale electric energy
markets. In addition, requiring such information ensures a common means
of communication and ensures common business practices that provide
participants engaged in transactions with demand response programs with
timely information and consistent business procedures across multiple
markets. The implementation of these data requirements will help the
Commission carry out its responsibilities under the Federal Power Act.
    50. The Commission sought comments on its estimate provided in the
NOPR of the burden associated with adoption of the NOPR proposals. In
response to the NOPR, no comments were filed that addressed the
reporting burden imposed by these requirements. Therefore the
Commission will use these same estimates in this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ``FERC-516'' is the Commission's identifier that
corresponds to OMB control no. 1902-0096 which identifies the
information collection associated with Electric Rate Schedules and
Tariff Filings.
    \30\ ``FERC-717'' is the Commission's identifier that
corresponds to OMB control no. 1902-0173 which identifies the
information collection associated with Standards for Business
Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                 Data collection                     Number of     responses per     Hours per     Total Number
                                                    respondents     respondent       response        of hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-516 \29\...................................               6               1               6              36
FERC-717 \30\...................................               6               1              12              72
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............             108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual Hours for Collection.

    (Reporting and Recordkeeping, if appropriate) = 108 hours.
    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
costs to comply with these requirements. The Commission projects the
average annualized cost for all respondents as follows: \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The total annualized costs for the information collection
is $39,960. This number is reached by multiplying the total hours to
prepare responses (108) by an hourly wage estimate of $370 (a
composite estimate that includes legal, technical and support staff
rates, $250 + $95 + $25 = $370), 108 hours x $370/hour = $39,960.
    \32\ We note that 36 hours at $370/hour= $13,320 and 72 hours at
$370/hour = $26,640. Together, $13,320 + $26,640 = $39,960 as shown
in note 32, supra.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FERC-516     FERC-717
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs..............      $13,320      $26,640
Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance)...          N/A  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs....................       13,320  \32\ 26,640
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. OMB regulations \33\ require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is
submitting this Final Rule to OMB. These information collections are
mandatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities (formerly Open Access Same Time Information
System) (FERC-717); Electric Rate Schedule Filings (FERC-516).
    Action: Information collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0096 (FERC-516); 1902-0173 (FERC-717).
    Respondents: Business or other for profit (Public Utilities--Not
applicable to small businesses).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business
procedures, capital/start-up).
    52. Necessity of Information: The Commission's regulations adopted
in this rule upgrade the Commission's current business practices and
communication standards by standardizing the definitions used by ISOs
and RTOs to identify their various demand response products and to
measure and verify the results obtained by these products. Moreover,
the implementation of these data requirements will help ensure
consistency among the ISOs/RTOs with respect to the measurement and
verification of demand response performance in their wholesale
electricity markets.
    53. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: Ellen Brown, Office of the
Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 Tel:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by contacting: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, e-mail: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
Comments to OMB should include the appropriate OMB Control Number(s)
and collection number(s) (OMB Control No. 1902-0096 for FERC-516, and/
or OMB Control No. 1902-0173 for FERC-717) as a point of reference.

VI. Environmental Analysis

    54. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\34\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\35\ The actions adopted here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas and electric power that requires no
construction of facilities. Therefore, an environmental assessment is
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \35\ 18 CFR 380.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    55. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \36\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In drafting a rule an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that
its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective
alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the
analysis available for public comment.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 601-604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. The regulations we are adopting in this Final Rule impose
filing requirements only on ISOs and RTOs, none of which is a small
business. Moreover, these requirements are designed to benefit all
customers, including small businesses. As noted above, adoption of
consensus standards helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by
requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of
industry participants representing all segments of the industry.
Because of that representation and the fact that industry conducts
business under these standards, the Commission's regulations should
reflect those standards that have the widest possible support.
    57. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the
Commission hereby certifies that the regulations adopted herein will
not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

VIII. Document Availability

    58. 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    59. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    60. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    61. These regulations are effective May 24, 2010. The Commission
has determined (with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB) that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 38

    Conflict of interests, Electric power plants, Electric utilities,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 38,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 38--BUSINESS PRACTICE STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. In Sec.  38.2, paragraphs (a)(10), (a)(11), and (b) are revised and
paragraph (a)(12) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  38.2  Incorporation by Reference of North American Energy
Standards Board Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) (WEQ-012, Version 002.1, March
11, 2009, with minor corrections applied on May 29, 2009 and September
8, 2009);
    (11) Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS)
Implementation Guide, Version 1.5 (WEQ-013, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied on May 29, 2009 and September 8,
2009); and
    (12) Business Practices for Measurement and Verification of
Wholesale Electricity Demand Response (WEQ-015, 2008 Annual Plan Item
5(a), March 16, 2009).
    (b) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies of these standards may be obtained from the North American
Energy Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX
77002, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>. NAESB's Web site is at http://
www.naesb.org/. Copies may be inspected at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
http://www.ferc.gov, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
* * * * *

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Appendix A

List of Commenters \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The abbreviations used to identify these commenters in this
Final Rule are shown parenthetically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

California Department of Water Resources State Water Project (Water
Project)
California Public Utilities Commission (California Commission) (with
notice of intervention)
Comverge, Inc. (Comverge)
Duke Energy Corporation (Duke)
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
FirstEnergy Service Company (FirstEnergy)
Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA)
Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON)
Energy Curtailment Specialists, Inc. (Curtailment Specialists) (also
filed motion to intervene)
EnerNOC, Inc. (EnerNOC) (also filed motion to intervene)
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Commission) (with
notice of intervention)
Industrial Coalitions \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Filed on behalf of Coalition of Midwest Transmission
Customers, NEPOOL Industrial Customer Coalition, and PJM Industrial
Customer Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Commenters

ISO/RTO Council \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ ISO/RTO Council includes the Independent System Operators
operating as the Alberta Electric System Operator, the California
Independent System Operator, Electric Reliability Council of Texas,
the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario, Inc., ISO
New England, Inc., Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and New
Brunswick System Operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
Public Interest Organizations (Public Interest Orgs) \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Jointly filed on behalf of Project for Sustainable FERC
Energy Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pace Energy
and Climate Center and Conservation Law Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (with motion to intervene)
Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar) (with motion to intervene)

[FR Doc. 2010-9084 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 35325]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3525-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Michigan; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Michigan (FEMA-3525-EM), dated May 21, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 29, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Michigan is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of May
21, 2020.

Gladwin County for emergency protective measures (Category B),
limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-12483 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Designations Methodology

3.1	An Overview of EPA’s Nine-Factor Analysis

In June 2007, the Administrator issued guidance to the EPA Regional
offices regarding the factors that could be considered as the basis for
nonattainment area boundaries.  In that guidance, EPA identified certain
factors that were deemed appropriate to consider in making nonattainment
area boundary recommendations and final boundary determinations. EPA
noted they would consider these same factors, along with any other
relevant information, in evaluating modifications to the boundary
recommendations from states and tribes. EPA recommended that states and
tribes consider the following nine factors in assessing whether to
include an area in the designated nonattainment area boundary:

Emission data

Air quality data

Population density and degree of urbanization (including commercial
development)

Traffic and commuting patterns

Growth rates and patterns

Meteorology (weather/transport patterns)

Geography/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries)

Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, Reservations,
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs))

Level of control of emission sources

EPA pointed out that this list of recommended factors was not intended
to be exhaustive, and states and tribes were free to submit additional
information on factors they believed were relevant for EPA to consider.
In general, EPA said that a state’s or tribe’s demonstration
supporting the boundary recommendation for an area should show that: 1)
violations are not occurring in the excluded portions of the recommended
area, and 2) the excluded portions do not contain emission sources that
contribute to the observed violations. EPA indicated that a state or
tribal submittal that addressed only whether monitored violations are
occurring in an area would not suffice as the sole justification for
designating the boundaries of a nonattainment area.  Appendix A contains
the EPA Guidance Memorandum to Regional Administrators.  The following
sections discuss each of the nine factors in more detail.

3.1.1	Factor 1: Emissions Data

The emissions analysis is an examination of emissions that contribute to
ambient PM2.5, including carbonaceous particles (carbon), inorganic
particles (crustal), SO2, NOx, VOCs, and ammonia. Emissions data are
derived from the 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), version 1, and
are given in tons per year. Emissions data indicate the potential for a
county to contribute to observed violations, making it useful in
assessing boundaries of nonattainment areas.

Emission data from the 2005 NEI Version 1 were used for technical
analyses for purposes of area designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

The 2005 NEI Version 1 is based on the 2002 NEI Version 3, with the
following additions:

1)	2005 emissions for electric generating units (EGUs) baed on CEM/heat
input reported to EPA by EGUs;

2)	2005 version 1 National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) run for onroad
and nonroad emissions;

3)	Facility closures from state/local and tribal agencies; and,

4)	2005 wildfire/managed burn data.

For more information about the NEI, go to:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2005inventory.html.

For technical analyses for 24-hr PM2.5 designations, PM2.5 emissions
data were derived from the 2005 NEI, version 1, and are given in tons
per year.  Emissions that contribute to ambient PM2.5, including
carbonaceous particles (carbon), inorganic particles (crustal), SO2,
NOx, VOCs, and ammonia, are included in the following sets of data.
Detailed monthly and annual emissions data for each State, by county,
are provided in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format.

Appendix B includes 2005 NEI data.

See also item 2.B. at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_2006_techinfo.html

3.1.2 	Factor 2: Air Quality Data

The air quality data factor involves consideration of data from the
national network of Federal Reference Method monitors operated to
measure total fine particle mass for determining compliance with the
PM2.5 NAAQS.  In the designations process, EPA also considered fine
particle chemical composition data from the Chemical Speciation Network,
the IMPROVE monitoring network in national parks and wilderness areas,
and for a limited number of sites, a supplemental analysis to evaluate
chemical composition for areas having only FRM monitoring (measuring
PM2.5 mass only) and no chemical speciation monitor.

PM2.5 Design Values

Areas are designated nonattainment for the 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS because
they have at least one ambient monitoring location which violates the
standard of 35 µg/m3.  A determination of NAAQS compliance is made by
considering the “design value” for each site.  The design value for
a site is the 3-year average of three annual 98th percentile
concentration values. The specific methodology for calculating the PM2.5
design values, including computational formulas and data completeness
requirements, is described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N.  Only PM2.5
measurements produced with the Federal Reference Method (FRM) or a
Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) can be used for NAAQS comparisons.

FRM measurement data residing in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) are
used to calculate the 24-hr PM2.5 design values.  Individual
measurements which are judged to be “exceptional” in accordance with
the Exceptional Events Rule (such as days with poor air quality caused
by wildfire or dust events) are not included in these calculations.
State, Local, and Tribal monitoring agencies are required to certify
data submitted to AQS on an annual basis, specifically by June 30th of
the subsequent year.  EPA typically extracts ambient data from AQS for
regulatory purposes shortly after that certification due date.  EPA then
calculates NAAQS design values and posts design value results on a
public website.  The State and Tribal recommendations sent to EPA in
December 2007 were based on data from 2004-2006.  The 2005-2007 PM2.5
design values were initially posted to www.epa.gov/airtrends in August
of 2008 (utilizing a data file extracted from AQS on July 8, 2008).
These data were referenced by EPA in its August letters responding to
State and Tribal designation recommendations.

Although annual data certification is required by June 30th of the
following year, additional time is allowed for EPA to review and
finalize its concurrence /non-concurrence of State requests to exclude
data from regulatory calculations, as appropriate, due to “exceptional
events.”  In order to provide the most up-to-date design values to
support 24-hr designations, EPA re-extracted all 24-hr PM2.5 FRM
measurement data from AQS on December 18, 2008 and re-computed final
PM2.5 design values.

Appendix C provides a summary listing of the final PM2.5 design values
for the periods 2004-2006 and 2005-2007 for each area to be designated
nonattainment for the 24-hour standard.  It also includes more detailed
site specific monitoring information for these periods.  This file is
also posted on www.epa.gov/airtrends.

PM2.5 Chemical Composition Monitoring Data

Fine particle chemical composition data (also known as “speciation
data”) is important in order to determine the composition of measured
PM2.5 and potential contributing emission sources.  The speciation data
used to support the various designation analyses include data from the
routine urban and rural speciation monitoring networks -- the Chemical
Speciation Network (CSN) and Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE), as well as limited measurements from Federal
Reference Method (FRM) filters.  For these 24-hr NAAQS analyses, data
for the highest PM2.5 days were selected to represent the 24-hr design
values as measured by the FRM.  These speciation measurement data were
adjusted using the SANDWICH procedure to represent the chemical
constituents of FRM mass.  Depending on availability, completeness and
proximity to the PM2.5 design value monitor location, different years of
data may have been used for specific analyses.  In all cases, however,
the data are judged to be representative of the most recent 3-years of
PM2.5 levels.

Appendix D is   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/presents/pm2.5_chemical_composition.pdf
"  The Chemical Composition of PM2.5 to support PM Implementation (PDF)
, a presentation on the general role of speciation data to support the
fine particle designations process and related analyses.  It was
presented at the PM2.5 Implementation and Designations Workshop for
State and Tribal representatives, held June 20-21, 2007 in Chicago, IL.
The presentation illustrates how EPA derives fine particle composition
associated with PM2.5 mass measurements, how the typical high day and
average composition varies spatially and temporally, and how these data
relate to potential emission sources.

Appendix E includes a summary of the major chemical components of PM2.5
for a number of areas being designated as nonattainment in December
2008.  These data are derived from the Chemical Speciation Network and
are presented for the 2005-2007 period.

Appendix F includes a report entitled “Limited 2004-06 Speciation Data
Derived from FRM filters for 20 Areas.”  The report describes an
analysis coordinated by EPA for selected areas without speciation
monitoring to evaluate the chemical composition of filters obtained from
FRM mass-based monitors.  See also:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/docs/available_new_speciation_data_pm2.
5_naa.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/docs/available_new_speciation_data_pm2.5
_naa.pdf .

Appendix G includes the data file for the report “Limited 2004-06
Speciation Data Derived from FRM filters for 20 Areas.”  See also:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/docs/archive_filters_chemical_analysis_d
ata_2004-2006.xls

Appendix H contains the report “Derivation of the Contributing
Emissions Score,” and includes speciation data summaries (2004-2005)
for CSN and IMPROVE sites that were used in developing the Contributing
Emissions Score.  For CSN raw data, see   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/htmSQL/mxplorer/query_spe.hsql"
http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/htmSQL/mxplorer/query_spe.hsql .  For raw
IMPROVE data, see http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/.

3.1.3 	Factor 3: Population Density and Degree of Urbanization

This analysis is an examination of the population for each urban area,
as well as the population density for each county in that area.
Population data indicate the likelihood of population-based emissions
that might contribute to violations.

The information used to derive the Factor 3 values for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS was taken from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2000 and 2005
(  HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html"
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html ).  The population density
was presented as the number of people per square mile, and the
statistics were rounded to two significant figures.

3.1.4 	Factor 4: Traffic and Commuting Patterns

The traffic and commuting analysis includes an examination of the number
of commuters in each county who drive to another county within an urban
area, the percent of total commuters in each county who commute to other
counties within the metropolitan area, and the total Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) for each county in millions of miles.

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data developed for the National Emissions
Inventory 2005 version 2 were used in technical analyses of areas for
purposes of area designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  The
2005 VMT data used for the 9-factor analysis have been derived using

methodology such as that described in "Documentation for the  2005
Mobile National Emissions Inventory, Version 2," December 2008, prepared
for the Emission Inventory Group, U.S. EPA.  A copy of this document can
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.

For 2005, a full VMT database at the county, roadway type, and vehicle
type level of detail was developed from Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) information.  For States and local areas that submitted VMT data
that were incorporated in the 2002 NEI, the 2002 NEI VMT data were
extrapolated to 2005 using growth factors developed from the FHWA data,
and these new VMT data replaced the baseline FHWA-based VMT data.  The
resulting VMT database prepared for 2005 include data for all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands for each
of the 12 Highway Performance Modeling System (HPMS) functional roadway
types and the 28 MOBILE6 vehicle classes, for a total of 336 records per
year per county.  The data were prepared in the NMIM National County
Database Base Year VMT table format. At this point, States had the
opportunity to submit 2005 estimates that replaced EPA’s estimates for
2005.

Appendix I includes a description of the methodology for preparing VMT
estimates:  “Methodology for Preparing VMT Estimates for the National
Emission Inventory:  2003, 2004, and 2005.”

Appendix J includes VMT totals for 2005 for each county in the United
States, in millions of miles:  “VMT Data Used for Technical Analyses
for Area Designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.”

Commuting Data

Information from the U.S. Census 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files
(downloaded from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html on
6/4/2003"  http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html
on 6/4/2003 ) was processed to develop summaries of the number of
workers 16 years old and over who are commuting between counties in and
around areas under consideration for PM2.5 designations.  To manage the
exceptionally large files that match every pair of counties in the
nation, only county pairs with greater than 10 commuters were included
in the tables.  The four statistics considered in the designations
process from these data were:

1) “Number commuting into any violating counties” indicates the
number of residents going from this county into any violating county
(including residents who commute within the same county)

2) “Percent commuting into any violating counties” indicates the
number of residents going from this county into any violating county
(including residents who commute within the same county) divided by the
total number of commuters residing in that county.

3) “Number commuting into statistical area” indicates the number of
commuters residing in this county and traveling into this particular
violating combined statistical area (CSA) or core based statistical area
( CBSA) (including residents who commute within the same county).  In
cases where no CBSA was identified, then the commuters traveling into
the particular violating county were considered.

4) “Percent commuting into statistical area” indicates the number of
commuters residing in this county and traveling into this particular
violating CSA or CBSA (including residents who commute within the same
county) divided by the total number of commuters residing in that
county.  In cases where no CBSA was identified, then the commuters
traveling into the particular violating county were considered.

For items 3 and 4, if the violating monitor(s) in the area were located
in a county within a CSA, the CSA was considered to be the statistical
area.  If the violating monitors were not located in a CSA but in a
CBSA, then the CBSA was considered to be the statistical area.  If the
violating monitor was not located in a CSA or CBSA, then the violating
county was considered to be the statistical area.

Appendix K includes county to county worker flow data for relevant areas
(from 2000 Census data).

3.1.5	Factor 5: Growth Rates and Patterns

The growth analysis is an evaluation of actual and/or projected percent
population growth for counties in an area over a period of time (e.g.,
ten years).

This factor looks at the population and VMT trends for each area from
2000 to 2005, as well as patterns of population and VMT growth. A county
with rapid population or VMT growth is generally an integral part of an
urban area and could be an appropriate county for implementing
mobile-source and other emission-control strategies, thus  warranting
inclusion in the nonattainment area.

3.1.6	Factor 6: Meteorology

The analysis of meteorological data considers the contribution of
meteorological conditions such as wind speed and wind direction to high
PM2.5 concentrations.  EPA evaluated wind trajectories and pollution
roses in evaluating this factor.

Wind Trajectories

Meteorology plays a major role in the formation and transport of fine
particulate matter over large areas. To better take into account the
transport of PM2.5 precursors and primary emissions to the violating
monitor, the HYSPLIT trajectory model developed by NOAA was used to
calculate wind trajectories 48 hours backward in time from the violating
monitor to show the path the air mass took on its way to the site.
Trajectories were run for those days with PM2.5 concentrations greater
than the 98th percentile for a particular year. Depending upon when an
area first violated the 24-hour standard, either the three year period
from 2004 through 2006 or 2005 or 2007 was used. A trajectory was
started from eight equally spaced times spread across the span of each
day (i.e., at three hour intervals). The initial start height for each
backward trajectory was set to the mixing height at the start time. The
mixing height at the start time was calculated by the HYSPLIT model. Two
additional evenly spaced starting heights relative to the starting
mixing height and a fourth height at 10 meters were used to calculate
trajectories in the same manner described above. The trajectories were
plotted using Google Earth and animations were created to show the path
the air masses took on their way to the violating site. The trajectory
paths were plotted as white lines with the locations of the air mass
along the path represented as colored dots to show the time the air mass
passed over a location.

The county trajectory weight corresponding to the values used for the
Contributing Emissions Score (CES) were also plotted to show the
meteorological adjustment used for the CES. The trajectory weights
provide an indication of the likelihood of a county being upwind of a
violating monitor on days with high PM2.5 concentrations. The locations
of electric generating units were also displayed as yellow push pins on
the map. The violating site was marked by a yellow star. Where
appropriate, an area's trajectories were divided into two seasons based
on the time of year when the day above the 98th percentile occurred. The
warm season was designated as the months of May through September, while
the cold season was all other months of the year.  A more detailed
description of the CES and its components is provided in given in
appendix H, Derivation of the Contributing Emissions Score.

Appendix L, Back Trajectory Information, includes a number of static
images showing the trajectories for days greater than the annual 98th
percentiles during either 2004 through 2006 or 2005 through 2007 for the
following areas:  Madison WI, Paducah KY, Clarksville TN, Parkersburg
WV, Knoxville TN, Louisville KY, Huntington WV, and Cleveland OH.  The
last two pages of the document contain two examples of trajectory
animations for the Paducah, KY area from September 10, 2005 and July 26,
2007. The concentration at the violating site for each day is noted next
to the site which is marked by a yellow star. The trajectory paths are
represented by white lines with the locations of the air mass at a
particular time being represented by colored dots. The clock at the top
of the animation shows the time of day.

Pollution Roses

Pollution rose graphics were produced for PM2.5 federal reference method
(FRM) ambient monitoring sites located in or near one of the 58
identified “potential” nonattainment areas.  A rose plot was
generated for each ambient monitoring site.  Each rose figure combines
24-hour FRM data (2005 to 2007) with available same-day meteorological
24-hour resultant wind speed and wind direction information.  Each rose
provides a visual indication of the predominant direction and associated
speed in which the wind was blowing on each PM2.5 sample day.
Meteorological information (i.e., wind speed and wind direction) from
the National Weather Service (NWS) reporting station nearest each
ambient monitoring site were aggregated to a 24-hour basis and paired
with the site’s PM2.5 24-hour average concentrations.  Hourly NWS wind
speed and wind direction data were aggregated to a daily (24-hour)
“resultant” basis by calculating vector averages.

On the rose graphics, the center of the plot (i.e., the crosshair
intersection of a north-south line and an east-west line) represents the
ambient monitor location.  Colored symbols (triangles and dots),
depicting the reported 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations, are plotted
around the monitor with their relative position (to the monitor center)
denoting the 24-hr average resultant wind speed and direction.  More
specifically:

The color and size of the symbols reflects the concentration of PM2.5 on
a given day. Small blue symbols indicate a 24-hour average concentration
of 30 µg/m3 or less; medium-sized yellow symbols indicate 24-hour
average concentrations between 30 and 35 (29.9 to 34.4) µg/m3; large
red symbols identify daily concentrations between 35 and 40 (35.5 to
40.4) µg/m3; and large black symbols identify concentrations greater
than 40 (> 40.5).  Thus, the red and black symbols show exceedances of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

The symbol shape indicates that “season” corresponding to the
reported observation.  Triangle symbols are used for readings collected
in the “cool” season (October through April, inclusive) and dot
symbols are used to mark observations that were collected in the
“warm” season (May through September).

The location of the plotted symbol in relation to the center of the
diagram indicates the direction from which the wind was predominantly
traveling that day (i.e., the 24-hour resultant wind direction). Thus, a
symbol in the top left quadrant of the pollution rose demonstrates that
the wind was emanating from the northwest direction on the date of that
particular monitor reading.  High concentration markers, especially when
grouped together, identify the typical directional location or
“source” of high particulate (and/or particulate precursor)
emissions.

The symbol’s distance from the center of the plot represents the
“resultant wind speed” for the day.  Resultant wind speeds are
indicated by the distance of the symbol from the center of the plot.
The center of the plot indicates a wind speed of zero; concentric
reference rings are drawn at 2 miles per hour increments up to 12 miles
per hour (i.e., at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 mph).  Resultant speeds
greater than 12 miles per hour are capped at 12 mile per hour, and
plotted on the outer reference ring.  Thus, symbols located close to the
center of the diagram indicate a slower resultant wind speed (and
perhaps stagnation conditions); symbols located further away from the
center indicate higher wind speeds and ostensibly, more possibility of
pollutant transport over a longer distance.

	There are several situations in which reported PM2.5 observations are
not plotted for a particular site:

Exceptional event-flagged days that have been approved by EPA (i.e., AQS
concurrence code =’Y’) are not shown.  Note that a July, 2008 AQS
extraction was the source of the PM2.5 data used to generate the
pollution roses but that subsequent exceptional event approvals were
made and considered in the designation process.  Thus, in some
situations, exceedances are plotted (and included in associated counts)
that would not have been if a newer dataset were utilized.  In these
situations, the identified 98th percentiles and 24-hour design values
are probably overstated.

Days in which there is insufficient meteorological data available for
the nearest NWS site are not plotted.

If wind data are available but indicate extreme variability (as
identified by a ratio of resultant speed / scalar speed of less than
0.4) then the observation also is not shown.

A note on the plot shows the number of exceedance days not plotted for
one of the last two reasons.

The distance between the ambient monitoring site and the NWS site is
provided on each plot.  For about 90% of the air quality monitoring
sites, the distance to the NWS site is within 30 miles.  For cases where
the distance between the air quality and meteorological site is great
and/or where there are significant topographic differences separating
the sites, the meteorological data may not be fully representative of
conditions at the air monitoring site.  This issue should be taken into
consideration when evaluating such data.

Pollution roses for the 58 areas included in the designations process
are provided in Appendix M.

An example pollution rose and detailed description is shown below.

Pollution Rose Key

The top line of the title shows the “potential” nonattainment area
in which the monitoring site is located (or nearby).  The
“potential” areas are typically based on (in this priority order)
existing PM2.5  nonattainment area boundaries (as prescribed in the 2006
FR notice), a combined statistical area (CSA) if the site is part of
one, a core-based statistical area (CBSA) if the site is located in one
of those that does not map to a CSA; or else just a county-state if the
county is not part of CBSA.  The area name in the top title is followed
by the county and state names in parenthesis.   A subtitle (the third
printed line) identifies the AQS site code represented by the plot.  The
site in the example plot has an AQS site ID of 42095002, and is located
in Northampton County, PA, which is identified as part of the potential
nonattainment area of Allentown, PA.

A legend in the right top corner shows the symbol colors used to
identify the daily concentration range and the symbol markers used to
show season.

The rose plot body shows the individual 24-hour average concentrations
for the site plotted around the site (center) directionally relevant to
the compass bearing the wind was blowing from and distance-relevant
according to the resultant wind speed that day.   The example plot shows
that there are sample days occurring in every wind quadrant but that
most of the days appear to be plotted to the left (or west), more
specifically between NNW and SSW.  Most of the high concentration days
for the example site appear to occur when the wind blows from the SW at
speeds of about 4-8 miles per hour.

2005-2007 PM2.5  summary information for the plotted site is shown in a
table at the bottom left of the figure.  The table shows the annual 98th
percentiles, annual counts of (non-concurred) NAAQS exceedances, and
also the 3-year 24-hour standard design value (shown in red if violating
the NAAQS and in blue if not).  A note below the table tells how many
non-concurred exceedances were not plotted because of missing met data
or variable wind conditions.  In the example plot, the site had 23 total
exceedances over the 3-year period 2005-2007: 8 in 2005, 7 in 2006, and
8 in 2007.   The annual 98th percentiles for the site are 36.2 µg/m3
for 2005; 38.3 µg/m3 for 2006; and 37.9 µg/m3 in 2007.  The 3-year
design value for the site is 37 µg/m3.  According to the note below the
table, 2 exceedances (out of the 23 total) were not plotted because of
missing met data or variable winds.

A two-line green-font text entry at the bottom right corner of the
figure identifies the specific NWS site from which meteorological data
were used to generate the plot (bottom line), and the distance between
that NWS site and the ambient monitoring location and (top line).  In
the example plot, met data from the Allentown Lehigh Valley
International Airport (NWS ID = 1437) were used to generate the rose
plot; that NWS site is approximately 5.9 miles from the PM2.5 monitoring
site.   A key for the plotted wind speeds (i.e., the concentric circles)
is shown just below the plot body (above the “5” in the example).

3.1.7	Factor 7: Geography/Topography

The geography/topography factor involves an examination of physical
features of the land that might have an effect on the airshed and,
therefore, on the distribution of particulate matter over an area. For
example, an area located in a valley bordered by mountains could
experience very different effects to the airshed from an area with
generally uninterrupted flat terrain.  Topography was an issue primarily
in western nonattainment areas.  Topographical maps are included in a
number of  area-specific technical analyses.

3.1.8	Factor 8: Jurisdictional Boundaries

The jurisdictional boundaries factor involves consideration of existing
boundaries that may facilitate or affect implementation of programs to
improve air quality.  The planning and organizational structure of an
area was considered to provide insights into how air quality planning
and enforcement is carried out in a potential nonattainment area.
Examples of jurisdictional boundaries include counties, air districts,
Tribal Reservations, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and
existing nonattainment areas.

3.1.9	Factor 9: Level of Control of Emission Sources

The level of control of emission sources factor involves the
consideration of emission control programs and associated emission
reductions that would be currently in place at the time the designations
are finalized.  In considering this factor, EPA recognized that the most
recent national emission inventory data available was from the year
2005.  EPA requested that the States and Tribes provide any additional
information regarding emission controls put in place through 2008.  EPA
also used information maintained by EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division
on power plant emissions and future planned emission controls.  Data on
future planned emission controls for electric utilities were obtained
from the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) database and
unit-level annual emissions data was obtained from EPA’s national
electric utility emissions database.  The NEEDS / emissions database
(May 2008 version) used in the designations process is included as
Appendix N.

3.2	Contributing Emissions Score

The Contributing Emissions Score (CES) is an EPA-developed method to
help identify counties that are potentially contributing to violations
of the 2006 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
fine particles (PM2.5). The CES is a tool EPA used in conjunction with
the factors recommended by EPA guidance to assess the contribution, if
any, of a given area to the ambient air quality of a nearby area not
meeting the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  The CES results help to determine
an appropriate potential nonattainment area boundary for an area that
should be designated nonattainment for the 24- hour NAAQS. It expands on
the methodology previously used for calculating the Weighted Emissions
Score (WES), which EPA developed to help inform decisions about nearby
contributing areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS during the nonattainment area
designation process completed in 2004. That process addressed areas
violating the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The CES is only one piece of
information considered by EPA in the analysis for evaluating PM2.5
nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

For the 24-hour PM2.5 designation process, the CES incorporates
additional information that was not included in the WES calculation,
reflecting differences between an annual versus a 24-hour standard. It
specifically considers the influence of emissions and meteorology on
days with high 24-hour fine particle concentrations, and incorporates
the seasonal composition of fine particle mass and source receptor
distance relationships.  The latter information is relevant for a
24-hour standard, for which individual days affect attainment status,
unlike an annual standard. The CES estimates the effect of pollutant
transport with a method similar to the Weighted Emissions Potential
(WEP) and the Emission Impact Potential (EIP). These daily PM2.5
assessment techniques, developed by non-EPA authors, use wind
trajectories and distance to better characterize the potential impact of
nearby areas. It is important to note that the CES represents a very
generalized approach and has been implemented as such across the country
using only county level data for consistency purposes. For this reason,
EPA recognizes that if more refined or updated data exist for a specific
area (e.g., higher resolved meteorological data or more recent emissions
data), state and local agencies have the opportunity to provide that
information to EPA for the revision of the Contributing Emissions
Scores.

 “Vector average” means that the daily 24-hour wind speed and wind
direction have been calculated by considering 24 individual observations
of wind speed and direction, and summing (and then averaging) these as
vector quantities.  If the wind direction is constant during the 24
hours, the 24-hour speed will simply be the average of the hourly wind
speeds.  If the wind direction changed from hour to hour, the 24-hour
speed will be less than the simple average of the hourly wind speed and
the direction will be a type of average of the hourly directions.
Together, the vector resolved wind direction and speed represent the net
forward path of an air mass during the 24 hours, accounting for any
meandering due to shifts in wind direction.

 For example, if the wind was from the east for 12 hours at one speed
and then from the west for 12 hours at the same speed, the vector
resolved wind speed and direction would both be zero.  The ratio of
scalar to resultant wind speeds would be zero.  Such a day would not be
plotted on the wind rose because doing so could give the impression that
there was little transport potential when in reality there was
opportunity for the air measured at the site to have been appreciably
influenced by emissions at some distance.

 These concepts were originally presented to an audience of
representatives from

USEPA, state and local environmental agencies at the PM2.5
Implementation Program

and the Area Designation Process for the 2006 PM2.5 Standards workshop
in Chicago, IL )

 PAGE

3- PAGE   4