Y RESEARCI-I TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS

SUBJECT: Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 11O(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Pasticle (PM2.5)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

FROM: William T. Hasnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division (C539-01)

TO: Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X

The purpose ofthis ~nelnorandum is to provide guidance on addressingthe "inf?ast~uctu~-e" elements for StateImnpleinentation Plans (SIPs) required under sections 1 1 O(a)(l) and 1IO(a)(2) ofthe 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 11 O(a)(l) and 110(a)(2)ofthe 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 ofthe standards. By law, SIPsto address sections 110(a) (1) and 110(a)(2) ase to be submitted by states within 3 years aRer promulgation of a new or revised standard.' In many cases the section 110(a)(2) SIPSfor the 1997PM2 5 NAAQS may alreadybe adequate to imnplen~ent he 2006 24-hour PM2 5 NAAQS. Many ofthe required section 11 O(a)(l) and 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general inforination and authorities that constitute the "inkastructure" ofa state's air quality managementprogram, 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 stateto make this determination for each new orrevised NAAQS.

As required by section 1 1 O(a)(l), states will have to review and revise, as appropriate, their existingpasticulatematter 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 Administratorand publically disseminated on September 21,2006. Therefore, the deadline for submittal of 110(a) SIPSfor 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 ofNew 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-tP ("Protection ofVisibility"), and Subpart Q ("Reports"). If a state determines that its existing SIP is adequate, then the stateneeds to certify through a SIP submittal (e.g., a letter to the Agency fiomthe Governor or hislher designee) that demonstrates the existing SIP contains provisions addressing all requirements ofthe section 11O(a)(2) infiastructure elements as applicable for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS. For purposes ofthe 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, in cases where a statebelieves that it meets the requirements of sections 11 O(a)(l) and 

### 110(a)(2)without further revision of its SIP, EPA believes it is appropriate for the stateto submit a certification letter without holding an additional public hearing. Because prior submissions for infiastsucturerequirements 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 sulemakingprocess.

In order for EPA to detenninethat 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 ofhow compliance with each element is achieved. Submissions lacking a detailed explanation for how the state's SIP meets each applicable requirement of section 110(a)(2) shouldbe deemed incomplete. Submissions that address somebut not all elements/sub-elements should not be deemed complete for the unaddressed elementslsub-elements, but will result in findings of failureto submit for only the unaddressed elementslsub-elements. After EPA makes a finding of failureto 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 1year 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 ofthe following final actions associated with the required SIP: (1) determinesthat a
statehas failed to make a SIP submission, (2) detesmines that a state has made 

### an incomplete submission, or (3) disapproves a SIP submission. Any ofthese 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 "significantcontribution" requirement of section llO(a)(2)(D)(i).

Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions &omwithin the state that significantly contributeto nonattainment ofthe NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, the state's submission must explain whether ornot enlissions &omthe state have this impact and, if so, address the impact.

The state's conclusionmust be supported by an adequate technical analysis. Information to support the state's determination with respect to significant contributionto 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 distanceto 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 statesto make this assessment by consideringthe impact ofcurrent 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 fthe 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 110 SIPSat this time that address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS, and states cannot wait for the CAIR replacement rule without getting a finding of failure to submit at this time. In addition, even ifthe CARrule were not remanded by the court, states cannot rely

on the current CARrule for this submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule does not address this NAAQS.



### 2. SIP Submissionsfrom States pertaining to the "interferewith n~aintenance" requirement of section llO(a)(Z)(D)(i).

Section 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain adequateprovisions to prohibit aispollutant emissions &omwithin the statethat interfere with maintenance ofthe NAAQS in any other state. States' submissionsmust 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 PM2.5NAAQS, not merely areas formerly

Ifassessing futureemissions 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 5years fsom the date ofnonattainment designations. Since designations are expected to be issued in 2009, the maximum attainment date would be 2014.designated nonattainment that are subjectto a maintenance SIP. Therefore, the state's submission must explain whether or not emissions &omthe 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 thepotentially 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 ofthe continentalUnited States. However, all states must submit complete 110 SIPs at this time that addressthe requirements of section 11 0(a)(2)(D) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS and states cannot wait for the CAIR replacement rule without getting a finding of failure to submit at this time.
submissions pertaining to the "preventionof significant deterioration" requirement of section llO(a)(2)(D)(i).

Section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)contains a requirement for all states to submit SIPSthat contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

### "....any source or other type ofemission activity within the state &omemitting 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 satisfjrthe requirements of40 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 ofthe 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 statesto make a SIP submission containing rule changes specifically to address section 11 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 ofpreconstruction permitting program for PM2.3. This program may include a transitional program or a progsam that confoimswith the minimum requirements ofEPA's May 2008 final rule on implementation oftheNSR program for PM2,5. 

### 73 Fed. Reg. 28321. In this action, EPA issued new final rules for certain components ofPM2.3preconstsuctionpermitting programs for attainment and nonattalment areas. States are currentlyrequired to revise their preconsti-uctionreview 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 submittingthe 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 arenot required to adopt the May 2008 rules for thepusposes of satisfyingthe section 110(a) SIPrequirenlentby September 2009 and may rely instead on implementing a transitional program for PM2.5, For example, the state's PSD program would satisfy therequirements of40 CFR 5 1.166 at this time if the applicablerule 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 PM2.5NAAQS, that EPA may promulgate.

States with PSD FIPs in place generally are required under a delegation agreement with EPA to implement,PSDin 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 agreementto enable implementation ofPM2,3 requirements.

In additionto the PSD permitting program, a state's SIP may include additional measures as necessary to prevent air pollution in excess ofthePSD 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, notwithstandingthe absence ofPSD 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 Submissionsfrom States pertaining to the "protect visibility" requirement of section 

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

Section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) also contains a requirement for all states to submit SIPsthat contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

### "... any source or other type ofemission activity within the state &omemitting 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 cat1be satisfied by 

### an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI), if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional Iiaze. EPA promulgated regulations in 1980to 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 -51.307. A state must take specified steps to address RAVI after a Federal Land Manager at anytime cei-lifiesthat RAVI exists at a specific Class 1Area. 40 CFR 51.302(c)(l).

Under the 1980 regulations, 35 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands were required to submit SIPsto addressRAVI. EPA issued FIPs to addressthe requirements ofRAVI 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 ofany cestificationby a Federal Land Manager of existing RAVI that remains unaddressedby 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 orpartial 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 35714 (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 obligationto 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 oftheir section 110(a) 

### SIP but have not formallyindicated this intention in

a SIP submission, or have not yet submittedthe regional haze SIP, may receive an additional finding of failure to submit this element oftheir 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 11 O(a)(2)(G) element, states with air quality control regions identified as either Priority 1, Priority IA, or Priority I1 by the "Prevention ofAir Pollution Emergency Episodes" rules at 40 CFR 5 1.150,must develop emergency episode contingency plans. Cui-rently,those regulatio~is do not specifically addressPM2.5.

Until the Agency finalizes changes to the emergency episode regulations to establish for PM25 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 PM2.5necessaryto develop emergency episode plans consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 5 1.150tlrough 5 1.153. We fksther recommend that states considerthe levels discussed in the February 12, 2007 EPA issue paper titled "Revising the Air Quality Index and Setting a SignificantHarm 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. Ifthis level was never exceeded in any area ofthe state, the state can certify that it has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM25-related episodes, and that no specific

The issue paper can be found at http:I/www.epa.~ov/ttnlcaaal~enlac~i issue paper 020707,~dfemergency 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 1997PM2 5 NAAQS, several states committed to make SIP submittals addressing section 110(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 11 O(k)(l 

### )(B), EPA cannot fmd such submittals to be complete. It is for this reason that EPA is providing therecommendations in this inemorandum as guidance for states to make submittalsto address section 11O(a)(2)(G). The SHL, Priority levels, and emergency action levels reconmended in Attachment 

### B are relevant for both the 1997PM2.5NAAQS and the 2006 PM2 5 NAAQS. If a state elects not to make a submittal that addresses section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS 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

Ifyou have any questions concerning this guidance, please contact David Sanders at (919) 541-3356. Please ensure that the appropriate air agency officials for states 

### in your Region

are made aware ofthis 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 conditionsthe contingencyplan portion of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997Pbf2.5 NAAQS, for which we issued a finding for failure to submitin October 2008, may also be resolved (73 FR 62902).