UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711


### SEP 2 5 2009

OFFI CE OF MEMORANDUM AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO: Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 11 O(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2. 5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) William T. Harnett, Director

# {J)~ 

# T:**~** Air Quality Policy Division (C539- 0l) Regional Air Divi sion Directors, Regi ons 1-X The purpose ofthis memorandum i s to provide g uidance on addressing the

" infrastructure" elements for State Implementation Plans (SIP s) required under sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour 

### PM 2.s NAAQS (71 FR 61144). On December 18 ,2006 , EPA revised the 24-hour average PM2.s primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ()lg/m3) to 35**~t g/m** **.** Under sections 11 O(a)(1) and 11 O(a)(2) ofthe CAA, after promulga tion of a new or revi sed NAAQS , each sta te is required to submit a plan to pro vide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofthat NAAQS

. States are**r~quired** to address bas ic SIP requireme. nts (see Attachment A), to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe standards

. By law , SIPs to address sections 110(a) ( 1) and 11 0(a)(2) are to be submitted by states within 3 years after promulgation ofa new or revised standard. 1 In many cases the section 11 0(a)(2) SIPs for the 1997 

### PM 2.s NAAQS may already be adequate to implement the 2 006 24

-hour PM2.s NAAQS. Many ofthe required section 11 0(a)( 1) and 11 0(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information and authorities that constitute the " infrastructure" ofa state's air quality management program, and these have b een in p lace s ince the initial SIP s were submitted in response to the ·1970 C lean Air Act. However, it is still the responsibility ofeach sta te to make thi s determination for each new or revised NAAQS

. 

### Determining C ompleteness of State Submittals As required by section 110(a)(l), states will have to review and revi se, as appropriate, their existing particulate matter SIPs to ensure that they are adequate to a ddress the 2 006 24

-hour PM2.s NAAQS. States should , in consultation with EPA Regional Offices, refer to applicab le EPA regu l ations governing SIP submittals in 40 CFR Part 51

- e.g ., Subpart H ("Prevention of

1 A lthough the rule f or the revised PM2 .5 s t andard ha s an effecti ve date ofDecember 18 , 200 6, the rule was signed by the Admini strator and publically di sseminated on Sept ember 2 1 , 2006. Theref ore, the deadline for submittal of 11 0(a) S IP s for the 2006 24-hour PM25 NAAQS is Se ptember 2 1, 2 009 based on t he signature date .

Internet Addre ss (URL) • http ://www.epa.gov R ecyc l e d/Recy c l able • P rint e d wHh Vegetable O il Based Ink s o n Recyc l ed Pape r (Minimum 25% Postco ns um er)2
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 ("Intergovernmental Consultation"), Subpart 

### 0 (Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements), Subpart I' ("Protection ofVisibility"), 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 fi·om the Governor or his/her designee) that demonstrates the existing SIP contains provisions addressing all requirements ofthe section II O(a)(2) infi·astructure elements as applicable for the 2006 24-hour PM 2 ,; NAAQS. For purposes ofthe 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, in cases where a state believes that it meets the requirements of sections II O(a)(l) and 11 O(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 infi·astructure requirements will have met the statutory 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 rulemaking process. In order for EPA to determine that a submittal for a SIP is complete, the submittal must affirmatively address all required elements/sub-elements, and should include documentation demonstrating a correspondence between each infrastructure element and an equivalent state statutory or regulatory authority in the existing or submitted SIP. At a minimum, a complete submission is a letter fi·om an appropriate state official (i.e., Governor or designee) certifying compliance 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 II O(a)(2) should be deemed incomplete. Submissions that address some but not all elements/sub-elements should not be deemed complete for the unaddressed elements/sub-elements, but will result in findings of failure to submit fur only the unaddressed elements/sub-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 order for EPA to make a determination 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 formal EPA review for approvability. Once EPA determines a SIP submission to be complete , or after six months when that submission is deemed complete by operation oflaw, EPA has up to I year to take action on (i.e., to approve or disapprove) the submission. EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (PIP) for the state if EPA takes any ofthe following final actions associated with the required SIP: (I) determines that a state has failed to make a SIP submission, (2) determines that a state has made an incomplete submission, or (3) disapproves a SIP submission. Any ofthese actions starts a two year PIP clock. In order to stop or rescind a PIP, the state must submit, and EPA must approve, a SIP submission that meets the applicable requirements.3
Guidance for Satisfying the Section 110(a)(2)(D) Requirement Compliance with CAA section 11 O(a)(2)(D) requires that states address 4 separate elements. 1. SIP Submissions from States pertaining to the "significant contribution" t·equirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions fl"om within the state that significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, the state's submission must explain whether or not emissions from 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 air quality impact and potential mitigation strategies. 2 Using these kinds of evaluations, it is EPA's intention to complete a rule to address interstate pollution transport in the eastern halfofthe 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. Cir. 2008). That new rule will assist states with obligations to address interstate transport that significantly contributes to nonattainment in another state. However, all states must submit complete 110 SIPs at this time that address the requirements of section 11 O(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 CAIR rule were not remanded by the court, states cannot rely on the current CAIR rule for this submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule does not address this NAAQS. 2. SIP Submissions ft·om States pertaining to the "interfere with maintenance" requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions fl"om within the state that interfere with maintenance ofthe NAAQS in any other state. States' submissions must address this independent requirement ofthe 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

2 Ifassessing future emissions the state should attempt to represent 

# a future 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 from the date ofnonattainment designations. Since designations are expected to be issued in 2009, the maximum attainment date would be 2014.4 designated nonattainment that are subject to a maintenance SIP. Therefore, the state's submission must explain whether or not emissions fi: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 supp01t its conclusions. Suitable information 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, and air quality modeling. Using these kinds ofevaluations, it is EPA's intention to complete a rule to address interstate pollution transp01t in the eastern half ofthe continental United States. However, all states must submit complete II 0 SIPs at this time that address the requirements of section I I O(a)(2)(D) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.s NAAQS and states cannot wait for the CAIR replacement rule without getting a finding of failure to submit at this time. 3. SIP submissions pertaining to the "prevention of significant deteriomtion" requirement of section IIO(a)(2)(D)(i). Section II 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 ofemission activity within the state fi'01n 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 satisfy the requirements of40 CFR 51.165(b)(l) and 40 CFR 51.166 (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 program deficiencies, it is not necessary, at this time, for states to make a SIP submission containing rule changes specifically to address section II O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2. 5 NAAQS. Ifthis is the case, the state can submit an appropriate ce1tification as described previously in this guidance. All areas are currently required to have some form ofpreconstruction permitting program for PM2v This program may include a transitional program or a program that conforms with the minimum requirements ofEPA's May 2008 final rule on implementation ofthe NSR program for PM2. 5 • 73 Fed. Reg. 28321. In this action, EPA issued new final rules for certain components ofPM2.s preconstruction permitting programs Rll' attainment and nonattainment areas. States are currently required to revise their preconstruction review permit programs to incorporate these new requirements into an approved SIP by May 20 I I. 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 tor revising state PSD programs for PM2 5 . Accordingly, EPA may revise the schedule for submitting the revised PSD SIPs 

# un· EPA approval. For the present time, however, the deadline for adopting and submitting PM2 .5 SIPs for NSR/PSD is May 201 I. Thus, states are not required to adopt the May 2008 rules for the5

purposes of satisfying the section llO(a) SIP requirement by September 2009 and may rely instead on implementing a transitional program for PM 2 .5 , For example, the state's PSD program would satisfy the requirements of40 CFR 51.166 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.s NAAQS, that EPA may promulgate. States with PSD F!Ps 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 agreement clearly authorizes them to implement the federal PSD program requirements as amended in May 2008. If a delegation agreement is def!eient in this regard, the state should work with EPA to modify the agreement to enable implementation ofPM2 5 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 51.166(a). However, EPA has not yet established PSD increments for PM2 .5 . Without these components of a PSD program, it is difficult for states to determine if additional measures are needed to prevent significant deterioration within the state. Likewise, a neighboring state cannot determine whether its SIP would interfere with such additional measures in another state's SIP. However, notwithstanding the absence ofPSD increments for PM2 .5, EPA believes that at this time states may continue to rely on their existing PSD and NNSR permitting 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 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section II O(a)(2)(D)(i)(Il) 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 fi·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 can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI), ifrequired, and an approved SIP addressing regional haze. EPA promulgated regulations in 1980 to address RAVI in Class I areas that is caused by the emissions of air pollutants fi·om one source, or a small number of sources. See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) and current 40 CFR 51.300-51.307. A state must take specified steps to address RAVI after a Federal Land Manager at any time certifies that RAVI exists at a specific Class 1 Area. 40 CFR 51.302(c)(l). Under the 1980 regulations, 35 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands were required to submit SIPs to address RAVI. EPA issued F!Ps to address the requirements ofRAVI for those states that had failed to submit SIPs. See 50 FR 28544 (July 12, 1985) and 52 FR 45132 (November 24, 1987). EPA is not aware of any certification by a Federal Land Manager ofexisting 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 RAY! elements,

### 6
should be able to make a relatively simple SIP submission verifying tbat 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 F!Ps in place will not satisfy the independent section II 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 I, 1999) and current 40 CFR 51.308

- 51.309. 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 currently under an obligation to submit SIPs that contain measures to address regional haze, including a long-term strategy to address visibility impairment for each Class I area which may be affected by emissions Ji·om 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. Virgin Islands had failed to make all or patt ofthe required SIP submissions to address regional haze. See 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). These findings require EPA to issue F!Ps within 2 years, by January, 2011, 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 II O(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 oftheir section IIO(a) SIP. EPA will be able to fully approve the submittal as satisfying section II 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 II O(a)(2)(G) element, states with air quality control regions identified as either Priority I, Priority lA, or Priority II by the "Prevention ofAir Pollution Emergency Episodes" rules at 40 CFR 51.150, must develop emergency episode contingency plans. Currently, those regulations do not specifically address PM2. 5 • Until the Agency finalizes changes to the emergency episode regulations to establish for PM2.s specific levels for classifying areas as Priority I, lA, and II tor PM2.s, 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.s necessary to develop emergency episode plans consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153. We fmther 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' a SHL. 3 Using the recommendations in Attachment B, for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G), states would develop emergency episodeplans for any area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.s levels greater than 140.4 )lg/m 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 PM 2 .5-related episodes, and that no specific

3 The issue paper can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/qen/aqi issue paper 020707.pdf7
emergency episode plans are necessary at this time, given the existing monitored levels 4 States should develop submissions to meet this requirement through appropriate public processes. In submittals addressing the 1997 PM2 .s NAAQS, several states committed to make SIP submittals addressing section II O(a)(2)(G) only after EPA completed a rulemaking to establish a SHL for PM2. 5 • We understand the motivation for taking this approach, and EPA is working to complete this rulemaking. Nevertheless, under section II O(k)(l )(B), EPA cannot find such submittals to be complete. It is for this reason that EPA is providing the recommendations in this memorandum as guidance for states to make submittals to address section II O(a)(2)(G). The SHL, Priority levels, and emergency action levels recommended in Attachment B are relevant for both the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM 2 .5 NAAQS. If a state elects not to make a submittal that addresses section II O(a)(2)(G) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.s NAAQS in accordance with the Agency's recommendations or otherwise meeting the statutory requirements, EPA will have reason to make a finding of failure to submit fi.Jr 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 McLean, OGC Margo Oge, OTAQ Steve Page, OAQPS Peter Tsirigotis, OAQPS Richard Wayland, OAQPS Lydia Wegman, OAQPS

4 Under these conditions the contingency plan portion of section llO(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM 2 .; NAAQS, lor which we issued a finding for failure to submit in October 2008, may also be resolved (73 FR 62902).Attachment A: Required Section 110 "Infrastructure" SIP Elements 5 Section 110(a)(2)(A)- Emission limits and other control measures: requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means, or techniques, and schedules for compliance. Section 110(a)(2)(B)- Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collection and analysis of ambient air quality data, and to make these data available to EPA upon request. Section 110(a)(2)(C)- Program for enforcement of control measures: requires SIPs to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction ofnew and modified stationary sources as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)- Interstate transport pi"Ovisions: requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions generated within the state fi·om contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the NAAQS, or fi"Om interfering with measures required to be included in the SIP of any other state to prevent significant deterioration or to protect visibility. Section 110(a)(2)(E)- Adequate resources: requires SIPs to provide necessary assurances tor adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its SIP, to contain requirements addressing potential conflicts of interest, and to provide necessary assurances that the state retains responsibility fbr ensuring adequate implementation ofthe SIP where the state relies on a local or regional government f(Jr implementation of any SIP provision. Section 110(a)(2)(F)- Stationary source monitoring system: requires SIPs to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources, to submit periodic emissions reports, to correlate the emissions rep01ts with the corresponding SIP emission limits and standards, and to make emissions repotis available to the public. Section 110(a)(2)(G)- Emergency episodes: requires SIPs to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and to provide for adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Section 110(a)(2)(H)- Future SIP revisions: requires SIPs to provide for SIP revisions in response to changes in the NAAQS, or availability of improved methods fbr attaining the NAAQS, and in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. Section llO(a)(2)(J)- Consultation with government officials, public notitication, PSD and visibility protection: requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements;

5 The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of sections IIO(a)(2)(C) and IIO(a)(2)(1) are subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing requirement of section II O(a)( I), and therefore not considered required elements ofthe "infi·astructure SIP."requires SIPs to notify the public ifNAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances; and requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements ofpart C related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection. Section 110(a)(2)(K)- Air quality modeling/data: requires SIPs to provide for the performance of air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality ofemissions of any NAAQS pollutant and the submission of such data to EPA upon request. Section 110(a)(2)(L)- Permitting fees: requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost ofreviewing, acting upon, implementing and enforcing a permit until such fee requirement is superseded by EPA approval of a fee program under title V ofthe Clean Air Act. Section 110(a)(2)(M)- Consultation/participation by affected local entities: requires SIPs to provide 

## toi· consultation and pmiicipation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.Attachment B: Recommended Interim Significant Hum Level, Pl"iority Levels, and Action Levels for PMz.sEmergency Episode Plans (EEPs)

Current AQI - PMz.s AQI Under Recommended Recommended Consideration

- EEP Priority EEP Action 24-honr Region Level Index 24-hom· Average Classification .Category**Avera~e** 

## ** Values**(~-tglm )t**  

## ***(~-tg!m·)** Good 0-50 0.0-15.4 0.0-15.4

. Moderate 51-100 15.5-40.4 15.5-35.4 Unhealthy tor 101-150 40.5-65.4 35.5-55.4 Sensitive Groups Unhealthy 151-200 65.5-150.4 55.5-140.4
Very Unhealthy 201-300 150.5-250.4 140.5-210.4 Priority Level II Alert

Hazardous 1 301-400 250.5-350.4 210.5-280.4 Priority Level Warning 

### I and !A
Hazardous 2 401-500 350.5-500 280.5-350.4 Emergency
Significant Harm Level (SHL) 350.5 

## t For a discussion ofpossible revisions to the AQI and SHL, see the EPA issue paper found at**hl1p:j/',yw)Y~.£!2'l·gslvfttJ**. .JLcamJ{ggnLi!Sli.**i'!ol!~~Jl-ill29L.** 02_Q7 

## OlJLqJ 

## * Based on historical incidence of24-hour average concentrations using the most recent 3 calendar years ofdata. **See 40 CFRPmt 51 Appendix L "Example Regulations for Prevention ofAir Pollution Emergency Episodes" tor an example ofthe application ofemergency action levels.