MEMORANDUM

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

SEP 2 5 2009

OFFICE OF

AIR QUALITY PLANNING

AND STANDARDS

SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:

Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(I) and (2)

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

Standards (NAAQS)

WHliam T. Harnett, Director W~1:

Air Quality Policy Division (C539-01) . .

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X

The purpose ofthis memorandum is to provide guidance on addressing the

"infrastructure" elements for State Implementation Plans (SIPs) required under sections

11 O(a)(1) and 11 0(a)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (71 FR

61144). On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and secondary

NAAQS from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (!-tg/m3) to 35 !-tglm3. Under sections 11 O(a)(I)

and 11 O(a)(2) ofthe CAA, after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each state is required

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

NAAQS.

States are r~quired to address basic SIP requireme.nts (see Attachment A), to assure

attainment and maintenance ofthe standards. By law, SIPs to address sections lI0(a) (1) and

110(a)(2) are to be submitted by states within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised

standard. I In many cases the section 11 0(a)(2) SIPs for the 1997 PM2.5NAAQS may already be

adequate to implement the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Many ofthe required section 11 O(a)( 1)

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

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

the initial SIPs wer'e 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.

Determining Completeness of State Submittals

As required by section 11 O(a)(1 ), states will have to review and revise, as appropriate,

their existing particulate 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

I Although the rule for the revised PM2.

5 standard has an effective date ofDecember 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 PM2.5 NAAQS is September 21,2009 based on the signature date.

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

Recycled/Recyclable. Printed wnh Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
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 P ("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 demonstratcs

the existing SIP contains provisions addressing all requirements ofthe section I 10(a)(2)

infi'astructure elements as applicable for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For purposes ofthe

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

sections I IO(a)(I) and I 10(a)(2) without further revision ofits 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 proccss 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 fora 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 appropriatc state official (i.e., Governor or designee) certifying

compliance with each element and with a spccific description of how compliance with each

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

each applicable requirement ofsection I 10(a)(2) should bc decmcd incomplcte. 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 offailure to submit fur only the

unaddressed elements/sub-elements. After EPA makes a finding offailure 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 thc 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 (FIP) fur 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 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.
3

Guidance for Satisfying the Section llO(a)(2)(D) Requirement

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

elements.

1. SIP Snbmissions from States pertaining to the "significant contribution"

I'equirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

Section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain

adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions fi0111 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, ifso, 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 eurrently 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 anothcr state. However, all states must submit complcte 110 SIPs at this time

that address the requirements ofsection II 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. In addition, even ifthe CAIR rule were not remanded by the court, states cannot rely

on the current CAIR rule for this submission for the 2006 24-hour PM25 NAAQS because the

CAIR rule does not address this NAAQS.

2. SIP Submissions fl'om States pertaining to the "interfere with maintenance"

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

Seetion 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically provides that each state's SIP must contain

adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions ]iom 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 ofimpacts on areas of

other states that are meeting the 2006 24-hour PM25 NAAQS, not merely areas formerly

2 Ifassessing future emissions the state should attempt to represent afuture year that is no further in the future than

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

attainment date to be no later than 5 years fr0111 the date of nonattainment designations. Since designations arc

expected to be issued in 2009, the maximum attainment date would be 2014.
4

designated nonattainment that are subject to a maintenanee SIP. Therefore, the state's

submission must explain whether or not emissions ft.-om the state have this impact and, ifso,

address the impact.

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

state deems appropriate to SUppOlt 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 transpOlt in the eastern half ofthe continental United States. However, all states must

submit complete 110 SIPs at this time that address the requirements ofsection I 10(a)(2)(D) for

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

getting a finding offailure to submit at this time.

3. SIP submissions pertaining to the "prevention of significant deteriomtion"

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

Section I I0(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 fi-Oln 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 of 40 CFR

51.165(b)(1) 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 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Ifthis 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 PM2Y 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 ofPM2.5 preconstruction permitting programs R))' 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 II. 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 fbI' revising state PSD programs for PM25.

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

approval. For the present time, however, the deadline for adopting and submitting PM25 SIPs for

NSR/PSD is May 2011. Thus, states are not required to adopt the May 2008 rules for the
5

purposes ofsatisfying the section 110(a) SIP requirement 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 51.166 at this time ifthe 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 PM25 NAAQS, that EPA may promulgate.

States with PSD FlPs 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 defIcient in this regard, the

state should work with EPA to modify the agreement to enable implementation ofPM25

req uirements.

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 llO(a)(2)(D)(i).

Section I 10(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 ofsources. 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(e)(1).

Under the 1980 regulations, 35 states and the U.S. Virgin 1slands were required to submit

SIPs to address RAVI. EPA issued FlPs 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 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,
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 FlP) of any other state. As noted above for PSD, those states

having full or partial FlPs in place will not satisfy the independent section II 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I1)

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 ofsources 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 1i'om a state. These SIP

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

District ofColumbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands had failed to make all or P31t ofthe 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, 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 11 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 offailure to submit this element oftheir section 110(a) SIP. EPA will be able to fully

approve the submittal as satisfying section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(1l) only after we have taken final

action approving the regional haze SIP.

Guidance for Satisfyiug the Section llO(a)(2)(G) Requirement

To address the section 11 0(a)(2)(0) 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

PM2.5 specific levels for classifying areas as Priority I, lA, and II 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 ftlr PM25 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 ofsatisfying

the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(0), states would develop emergency episodeplans for any

area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140.4 Jlg/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 PM2.5-related episodes, and that no specific

3 The issue paper can he found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/gen/agi issue paper 020707.pdf
7

emergency cpisode plans are necessary at this time, given the existing monitored levels 4 States

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

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

submittals addressing scction I I0(a)(2)(G) only aftcr EPA completcd a rulemaking to establish a

SHL for PM25. We understand the motivation for taking this approach, and EPA is working to

completc this ruIemaking. Nevertheless, under section I IO(k)(I )(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 I 10(a)(2)(G). The

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

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

submittal that addresses section II 0(a)(2)(G) for the 2006 24-hoUf PM25 NAAQS in accordance

with the Agency's recommendations or otherwise meeting the statutory requirements, EPA will

have reason to make a finding offailure to submit filr this NAAQS.

For Further Information

If you 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, OGe

Margo Oge, OTAQ

Steve Page, OAQPS

Peter Tsirigotis, OAQPS

Richard Wayland, OAQPS

Lydia Wegman, OAQPS

4 Under these conditions the contingency plan portion ofsection 110(a)(2)(0) for the 1997 PM,,; NAAQS, lor

which we issued a finding for failure to suhmit in October 2008, may also be resolved (73 FR 62902).
Attachmcnt A: Rcquired Section 110 "Iufrastructure" SIP ElementsS

Section 1l0(a)(2)(A) - Emission limits and other control measures: requires SIPs to include

enforceable emission limits and othcr controlmcasurcs, mcans, 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 of new 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 pl'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 for

adequate pcrsonnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its SIP, to contain

requirements addressing potential conflicts ofinterest, 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 fbr 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 repOlts with the corresponding SIP emission limits and standards, and to

make emissions repolts 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 ofimproved methods lor attaining the

NAAQS, and in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

Section 110(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 nonaltainment area plan requirements ofsections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(1) are subject to the

timing requirement ofsection 172, not the timing requirement ofsection IIO(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 ofsignificant deterioration and visibility

protection.

Section llO(a)(2)(K) - Air quality modeling/data: requires SIPs to provide for the performance

of air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant

and the submission ofsuch data to EPA upon request.

Section llO(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 foi· consultation and paIiicipation 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 PM2.5Emergency Episode Plans (EEPs)

Current AQI - PM2.5 AQI Under Recommended Recommended Consideration - EEP Pl"iority EEP Action 24-hour Region Level

Index 24-hoUi' Average Classification .Category Avera~e **

Values (/-tg/m3)t *

(/-tglm' )

Good 0-50 0.0-15.4 0.0-15.4

.Moderate 51-100 15.5-40.4 15.5-35.4

Unhealthy for 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 I 301-400 250.5-350.4 210.5-280.4 Priority Level Warning I and IA

Hazardous 2 401-500 350.5-500 280.5-350.4 Emergency

Significant Harm Level (SHL) 350.5

t For a discussion of possible revisions to the AQI and SHL, see the EPA issue paper found

at !:!i1p:10YW)Y~.£l2'H~'lvjttnLcaml{genL;lSli.i"ol!e~jl-ill).£L02-07Oln,if * Based on historical incidence of24-hour average concentrations using the most recent 3

calendar years ofdilta. **

See 40 CFRPmi 51 Appendix L "Example Regulations for Prevention ofAir Pollution

Emergency Episodes" for an example ofthe application of emergency action levels.