Y 

RESEARCI-I TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2771 1 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

SUBJECT: Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 11 O(a)(l) and (2) 

for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Pasticle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (N AAQS) 

FROM: William T. Hasnett, Director 

Air Quality Policy Division (C539-01) 

TO: Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X 

The purpose of this ~nelnorandum is to provide guidance on addressing the 

"inf?ast~uctu~-e" elements for State Imnpleinentation Plans (SIPs) required under sections 

1 1 O(a)(l) and 1 I O(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour PM2 5 NAAQS (71 FR 

61 144). On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and secondary 

NAAQS kom 65 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) to 35 pS/1n3. Under sections 1 1 O(a)(l) 

and 110(a)(2) of the CAA, afier promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each state is required 

to submit a plan to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforceinent ofthat 

NAAQS. 

States are required to address basic SIP requirements (see Attachment A), to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the standards. By law, SIPs to address sections 1 10(a) (1) and 

11 0(a)(2) ase to be submitted by states within 3 years aRer promulgation of a new or revised 

standard.' In many cases the section 1 10(a)(2) SIPS for the 1997 PM2 5 NAAQS may already be 

adequate to imnplen~enthe 2006 24-hour PM2 5 NAAQS. Many of the required section 11 O(a)(l) 

and 11 0(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general inforination and authorities that constitute the 

"inkastructure" of a state's air quality management program, and these have been in place since 

the initial SIPs were submitted in response to the 1970 Clean Air Act. However, it is still the 

responsibility of each state to make this determination for each new or revised NAAQS. 

As required by section 1 1 O(a)(l), states will have to review and revise, as appropriate, 

their existing pasticulate matter SIPs to ensure that they are adequate to address the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. States should, in consultation with EPA Regional Offices, refer to applicable 

EPA regulations governing SIP submittals in 40 CFR Part 51 - e.g., Subpart H ("Prevention of 

Altliough the rule for the revised PM2 standard has an effective date of December 18, 2006, the rule was signed 

by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,2006. Therefore, the deadline for submittal of 

110(a) SIPS for the 2006 24-hour PM2 NAAQS is September 21,2009 based on the signature date. 

Internet Address (URL) 0 http://www.epa.gov 

RecycledlRecyclable e Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimurn 25% Postconsumer) 
Air Pollution Emergency Episodes"), Subpart I ("Review of New Sources and Modifications"), 

Subpart J (Ambient Air Quality Surveillance), Subpart K (Source Surveillance), Subpart L 

(Legal Authority), Subpart M ("Intergoverninental Consultation"), Subpart 0 (Miscellaneous 

Plan Content Requirements), Subpai-t P ("Protection of Visibility"), and Subpart Q ("Reports"). 

If a state determines that its existing SIP is adequate, then the state needs to certify through a SIP 

submittal (e.g., a letter to the Agency fiom the Governor or hislher designee) that demonstrates 

the existing SIP contains provisions addressing all requirements of the section 11O(a)(2) 

infiastructure elements as applicable for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For purposes of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, in cases where a state believes that it meets the requirements of 

sections 1 1 O(a)(l) and 1 10(a)(2) without further revision of its SIP, EPA believes it is 

appropriate for the state to submit a certification letter without holding an additional public 

hearing. Because prior submissions for infiastsucture requirements will have met the statutoiy 

requirements for notice and public hearing, EPA believes that such process is not required now. 

The public will have an opportunity to review the certification when EPA takes action on the 

submittal through the notice-and-comment sulemaking process. 

In order for EPA to detennine that a submittal for a SIP is complete, the submittal must 

affirmatively address all required eleinentslsub-elements, and should include documentation 

demonstrating a correspondence between each infiastructure element and an equivalent state 

statutory or regulatory authority in the existing or submitted SIP. At a minimum, a complete 

submission is a letter fiom an appropriate state official (i.e., Governor or designee) certifying 

compliai~ce with each element and with a specific description of how compliance with each 

element is achieved. Submissions lacking a detailed explanation for how the state's SIP meets 

each applicable requirement of section 1 10(a)(2) should be deemed incomplete. Submissions 

that address some but not all elements/sub-elements should not be deemed complete for the 

unaddressed elementslsub-elements, but will result in findings of failure to submit for only the 

unaddressed elementslsub-elements. After EPA makes a finding of failure to submit, the state 

would only be required to submit those elements that were found not to have been submitted in 

ordes for EPA to make a deteimination that the SIP is fully complete. Letters stating that the 

state will submit a SIP revision some time in the future are not complete. 

A finding that the submittal is complete does not mean that the submittal is approvable 

because the completeness review only addresses whether the state has provided information 

sufficient to warrant fonnal EPA review for approvability. Once EPA detesmines a SIP 

submission to be complete , or after six months when that submission is deemed complete by 

operation of law, EPA has up to 1 year to take action on (i.e., to approve or disapprove) the 

submission. EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the state if EPA 

takes any of the following final actions associated with the required SIP: (1) determines that a 

state has failed to make a SIP submission, (2) detesmines that a state has made an incomplete 

submission, or (3) disapproves a SIP submission. Any of these actions starts a two year FIP 

clock. In order to stop or rescind a FIP, the state must submit, and EPA must approve, a SIP 

submission that meets the applicable requirements. 
Guidance for Satisfvin~ the Section 110(a)(Z)(D) Requirement 

Compliance with CAA section 11 0(a)(2)(D) requires that states address 4 separate 

elements. 

8. SIP Submissions from States pertaining to the "significant contribution" 

requirement of section llO(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions &om within the state that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, the state's submission 

must explain whether or not enlissions &om the state have this impact and, if so, address the 

impact. 

The state's conclusion must be supported by an adequate technical analysis. Information to 

support the state's determination with respect to significant contribution to nonattainment might 

include, but is not limited to, information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological 

conditions in the state and the potentially impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in 

the state and the potentially impacted states, the distance to the nearest area that is not attaining 

the NAAQS in another state, and air quality modeling. The EPA believes that it would be 

appropriate for states to make this assessment by considering the impact of current or future 

emissions on nearby nonattainment areas, and evaluating the ais quality impact and potential 

mitigation strategies.2 Using these kinds of evaluations, it is EPA7s intention to complete a rule 

to address interstate pollution transport in the eastern half o f the continental United States. 

EPA is currently working on a new rule to replace the CAIR rule that will address issues 

raised by the court in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cis. 2008). That new rule will 

assist states with obligations to address interstate transport that significantly contributes to 

nonattahnent in another state. However, all states must submit complete 1 10 SIPS at this time 

that address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

states cannot wait for the CAIR replacement rule without getting a finding of failure to submit at 

this time. In addition, even if the CAR rule were not remanded by the court, states cannot rely 

on the current CAR rule for this submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the 

CAIR rule does not address this NAAQS. 

2. SIP Submissions from States pertaining to the "interfere with n~aintenance" 

requirement of section llO(a)(Z)(D)(i). 

Section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit ais pollutant emissions &om within the state that interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. States' submissions must address this 

independent requirement of the statute. This provision requires evaluation of impacts on areas of 

other states that are meeting the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas formerly 

If assessing future emissions the state should attempt to represent a hture year that is no further in the future than 

the year in which attainment of the NAAQS is required in the downwind state. In most cases we expect the 

attainment date to be no later than 5 years fsom the date of nonattainment designations. Since designations are 

expected to be issued in 2009, the maximum attainment date would be 2014. 
designated nonattainment that are subject to a maintenance SIP. Therefore, the state's 

submission must explain whether or not emissions &om the state have this impact and, if so, 

address the impact. 

A state's submission for this requirement should provide the technical information which the 

state deems appropriate to suppost its conclusions. Suitable information might include, but is not 

limited to, infoimation concerning emissions in the state, n~eteorological conditions in the state 

and the potentially impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and the 

potentially impacted states, and air quality modeling. 

Using these kinds of evaluations, it is EPA's intention to complete a rule to address interstate 

pollution transport in the eastern half of the continental United States. However, all states must 

submit complete 110 SIPs at this time that address the requirements of section 11 0(a)(2)(D) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and states cannot wait for the CAIR replacement rule without 

getting a finding of failure to submit at this time. 

submissions pertaining to the "prevention of significant deterioration" 

requirement of section llO(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) contains a requirement for all states to submit SIPS that 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting ".... any source or other type of emission activity within 

the state &om emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere with measures required 

to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state .... to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality ..." 

EPA believes this requirement is satisfied for PM2.5 if a state's SIP includes 

preconstruction review programs for major sources that satisfjr the requirements of 40 CFR 

5 1.165(b)(l) and 40 CFR 5 1.166 (i.e., New Source Review for major stationary sources locating 

in attainment areas when the source will cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), respectively). Unless the area has known 

outstanding permit progsam deficiencies, it is not necessary, at this time, for states to make a SIP 

submission containing rule changes specifically to address section 1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2,5 NAAQS. If this is the case, the state can submit an appropriate certification 

as described previously in this guidance. 

All areas are currently required to have some form of preconstruction permitting program 

for PM2.3. This program may include a transitional program or a progsam that confoims with the 

minimum requirements of EPA's May 2008 final rule on implementation of the NSR program 

for PM2,5. 73 Fed. Reg. 28321. In this action, EPA issued new final rules for certain 

components of PM2.3 preconstsuction permitting programs for attainment and nonattalment 

areas. States are currently required to revise their preconsti-uction review permit programs to 

incorporate these new requirements into an approved SIP by May 201 1. However, this provision 

under the May 2008 rules has been challenged and is now under a petition for reconsideration 

whereby EPA has agreed to reconsider the schedule for revising state PSD programs for PM2.5. 

Accordingly, EPA may revise the schedule for submitting the revised PSD SIPs for EPA 

approval. For the present time, however, the deadline for adopting and submitting PM2.5 SIPs for 

NSRIPSD is May 201 1. Thus, states are not required to adopt the May 2008 rules for the 
pusposes of satisfying the section 1 10(a) SIP requirenlent by September 2009 and may rely 

instead on implementing a transitional program for PM2.5, For example, the state's PSD program 

would satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 5 1.166 at this time if the applicable rule defines the 

pollutants subject to regulation, e.g., "regulated NSR pollutant," in such way as to automatically 

include any new NAAQS, e.g., 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, that EPA may promulgate. 

States with PSD FIPs in place generally are required under a delegation agreement with 

EPA to implement ,PSD in accordance with the federal PSD program, which provides for the 

automatic protection of any new NAAQS that EPA may promulgate. These states must ensure 

that their delegation agseement clearly authorizes them to implement the federal PSD program 

requirements as amended in May 2008. If a delegation agreement is deficient in this regard, the 

state should work with EPA to modify the agreement to enable implementation of PM2,3 

requirements. 

In addition to the PSD permitting program, a state's SIP may include additional measures 

as necessary to prevent air pollution in excess ofthe PSD increment that defines significant 

deterioration for each area. 40 CFR 5 1.166(a). However, EPA has not yet established PSD 

increments for PM2.5. Without these components of a PSD prograiq it is difficult for states to 

determine if additional measures are needed to prevent significant deterioration within the state. 

Likewise, a neighboring state cannot detesmine whether its SIP would interfere with such 

additional measures in another state's SIP. However, notwithstanding the absence of PSD 

increments for PM2.5, EPA believes that at this time states may continue to rely on their existing 

PSD and NNSR pesmitting programs to prevent significant deterioration of air quality within 

their own boundaries and in adjacent states until such increments are established. 

4. SIP Submissions from States pertaining to the "protect visibility" requirement of 

section 1 lO(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) also contains a requirement for all states to submit SIPs that 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting "... any source or other type of emission activity within 

the state &om emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere with measures required 

to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state .... to protect visibility." 

EPA believes this requirement cat1 be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment (RAVI), if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional 

Iiaze. EPA promulgated regulations in 1980 to address RAVI in Class I areas that is caused by 

the emissions of air pollutants fkom one source, or a small number of sources. See 45 FR 80084 

(December 2, 1980) and current 40 CFR 5 1.300 - 5 1.307. A state must take specified steps to 

address RAVI after a Federal Land Manager at any time cei-lifies that RAVI exists at a specific 

Class 1 Area. 40 CFR 5 1.302(c)(l). 

Under the 1980 regulations, 35 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands were required to submit 

SIPs to address RAVI. EPA issued FIPs to address the requirements of RAVI for those states 

that had failed to submit SIPs. See 50 FR 28544 (July 12, 1985) and 52 FR 451 32 (November 

24, 1987). EPA is not aware of any cestification by a Federal Land Manager of existing RAVI 

that remains unaddressed by a currently approved SIP or FIP. Accordingly, we believe that 

states for which EPA has approved into the state's current SIP some or all RAVI elements, 
should be able to make a relatively simple SIP submission verifying that no source within the 

state emits pollutants that interfere with RAVI measures included in the applicable 

implementation plan (SIP or FIP) of any other state. As noted above for PSD, those states 

having full or partial FIPs in place will not satisfy the independent section 1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirement unless they submit, and EPA approves into the SIP, all required RAVI elements. 

In 1999, EPA issued regulations requiring states to address regional haze impacting 

visibility in Class I areas. See 64 FR 3571 4 (July 1, 1999) and current 40 CFR 5 1.308 - 5 1.309. 

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities 

which emit visibility-impairing pollutants and their precursors and which are located across a 

broad geographic area. States are cui-sently under an obligation to submit SIPs that contain 

measures to address regional haze, including a long-term strategy to address visibility 

impahment for each Class I area which may be affected by emissions from a state. These SIP 

submissions were due on December 17, 2007. In January 2009, EPA found that 37 states, the 

District of Columbia, and the U.S. Visgin Islands had failed to make all or past of the required 

SIP submissions to address regional haze. See 74 FR 2392 (January 15,2009). These findings 

require EPA to issue FIPs within 2 years, by January, 201 1, unless the states submit SIPs and 

EPA approves them before that date. States that intend to rely on the required regional haze SIPs 

to satisfy this element of their section 11 0(a) SIP but have not formally indicated this intention in 

a SIP submission, or have not yet submitted the regional haze SIP, may receive an additional 

finding of failure to submit this element of their section 110(a) SIP. EPA will be able to hlly 

approve the submittal as satisfying section I 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) only after we have taken final 

action approving the regional haze SIP. 

Guidance for Satisfying the Section 110(a)(2)(G) Requirement 

To address the section 1 1 O(a)(2)(G) element, states with air quality control regions 

identified as either Priority 1, Priority IA, or Priority I1 by the "Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes" rules at 40 CFR 5 1.150, must develop emergency episode contingency 

plans. Cui-rently, those regulatio~is do not specifically address PM2.5. 

Until the Agency finalizes changes to the emergency episode regulations to establish for 

PM2 5 specific levels for classifying areas as Priority I, IA, and I1 for PM2 5, and to establish a 

significant harm level (SHL), EPA recommends that states through their public processes set 

Priority levels and emergency action levels for PM2.5 necessary to develop emergency episode 

plans consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 5 1.150 tlrough 5 1.153. We fksther 

recommend that states consider the levels discussed in the February 12, 2007 EPA issue paper 

titled "Revising the Air Quality Index and Setting a Significant Harm Level for PM2,5" and to 

Attachment B to this guidance in establishing Priority levels and emergency action levels, 

including's SHL.' Using the recommendations in Attachment B, for the pusposes of satisfying 

the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(6), states would develop emergency episode lam for any 3" area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140.4 pglm since 2006. 

If this level was never exceeded in any area of the state, the state can certify that it has 

appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2 5-related episodes, and that no specific 

The issue paper can be found at http:I/www.epa.~ov/ttnlcaaal~enlac~i issue paper 020707,~df 
emergency episode plans are necessary at this time, given the existing monitored level^.^ States 

should develop submissions to meet this requirement through appropriate public processes. 

In submittals addressing the 1997 PM2 5 NAAQS, several states committed to make SIP 

submittals addressing section 1 10(a)(2)(G) only after EPA completed a mlemaking to establish a 

SHL for We understand the motivation for taking this approach, and EPA is working to 

complete tlis ruleinaking. Nevertheless, under section 1 1 O(k)(l )(B), EPA cannot fmd such 

submittals to be complete. It is for this reason that EPA is providing the recommendations in this 

inemorandum as guidance for states to make submittals to address section 11 O(a)(2)(G). The 

SHL, Priority levels, and emergency action levels reconmended in Attachment B are relevant 

for both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2 5 NAAQS. If a state elects not to make a 

submittal that addresses section 1 10(a)(2)(G) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance 

with the Agency's recoinmendations or otherwise meeting the statuto~y requirements, EPA will 

have reason to make a finding of failure to submit for this NAAQS. 

For Further Information 

If you have any questions concerning this guidance, please contact David Sanders at 

(9 19) 541 -3356. Please ensure that the appropriate air agency officials for states in your Region 

are made aware of this guidance. 

Attachments 

cc: Brian McLean, OAP 

Kevin McLeaii, OGC 

Margo Oge, OTAQ 

Steve Page, OAQPS 

Peter Tsirigotis, OAQPS 

Richard Wayland, OAQPS 

Lydia Wegman, OAQPS 

Under these conditions the contingency plan portion of section 1 10(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 Pbf2.5 NAAQS, for 

which we issued a finding for failure to submit in October 2008, may also be resolved (73 FR 62902).