UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103DATE:JUL282011SUBJECT:TechnicalSupportDocument(TSD)fortheMarylandStateImplementationPlanforSection110(a)(2)InfrastructureRequirementsforthe19978-hourOzoneandthe1997and2006FineParticulate(PM25)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsFROM:MarilynPowers,EnvironmentalEngineerIktL4JLL/2’/1OfficeofAirProgramPlanningTO:FileTHRU:Cristinaemandez,AssociateDirector,OfficeofAirProgramPlanningA.INTRODUCTIONTheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)istakingactionontheStateofMarylandStateImplementationPlan(SIP)revisionssubmittedbytheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)tomeettheCleanAirAct(CAA)section110(a)(2)requirementsfortherevised19978-hourozonenationalambientairqualitystandards(NAAQS),the1997PM2.5NAAQS,andthe24-hour2006PM2.5NAAQS.B.BACKGROUND19978-HourOzoneandPM2.5NAAQSOnJuly18,1997,EPApromulgatedarevised8-hourozoneNAAQS(62FR38856)andanewPM2.5NAAQS(62FR38652).TherevisedozoneNAAQSisbasedon8-houraverageconcentrations.The8-houraveragingperiodreplacedtheprevious1-houraveragingperiod,andtheleveloftheNAAQSwaschangedfrom0.12partspermillion(ppm)to0.08ppm.ThenewPM2.5establishedahealth-basedPM2.5NAAQSat15.0microgramspercubicmeter(ig/m3)basedona3-yearaverageofannualmeanPM2.5concentrations,andatwenty-fourhourstandardof65ig/m3basedona3-yearaverageofthe98thpercentileof24-hourconcentrations.WheneveraneworrevisedNAAQSispromulgated,section110(a)oftheCAAimposesobligationsuponstatestosubmitSIPrevisionsthatprovidefortheimplementation,maintenance,andenforcementoftheneworrevisedNAAQSwithinthreeyearsfollowingthepromulgationof1suchNAAQS-thesocalledinfrastructureSIPrevisions.Althoughstatestypicallyhavemetmanyofthebasicprogramelementsrequiredinsection110(a)(2)throughearlierSIPsubmissionsinconnectionwithpreviousozoneandPMstandards,states(includingalltheRegion3states)werestillrequiredtosubmitSIPrevisionsthataddresssection110(a)(2)forthe1997NAAQS.TheseSIPsweredueinJuly2000.However,interveninglitigationoverthe19978-hourozoneandPM2.5NAAQScreateduncertaintyabouthowtoproceed.InMarchof2004,EarthjusticeinitiatedalawsuitagainstEPAforfailuretotakeactionagainststatesthathadnotmadeSIPsubmissionstomeettherequirementsofsections110(a)(l)and(2),i.e.,failuretomakea‘findingoffailuretosubmittherequiredSIP110(a)SIPelements.”OnMarch10,2005,EPAenteredintoaConsentDecreewithEarthjusticethatobligatedEPAtomakeofficialfindings,inaccordancewithsection1l0(k)(1)oftheCAA,astowhetherstateshavemadecompleteSIPsubmissions,pursuanttosections110(a)(1)and(2),byDecember15,2007forthe19978-hourozoneNAAQSandbyOctober5,2008forthe1997PM2.5NAAQS.EPAmadecompletenessfindingsforthe19978-hourozoneNAAQSonMarch27,2008(73FR16205)andonOctober22,2008(73FR62902)forthe1997PM2.5NAAQS.Thesefindingspertainedonlytowhetherthesubmissionswerecomplete,pursuantto1l0(k)(1)(A),anddidnotconstituteEPAapprovalordisapprovalofsuchsubmissions.Twoelementsidentifiedinsection110(a)(2)arenotgovernedbythethreeyearsubmissiondeadlineofsection110(a)(1)becauseSIPsincorporatingnecessarylocalnonattaininentareacontrolsarenotduewithinthreeyearsafterpromulgationofaneworrevisedNAAQS,butratheraredueatthetimethenonattainmentareaplanrequirementsareduepursuanttosection172.Theseelementsare:1)submissionsrequiredbysectionllO(a)(2)(C)totheextentthatsubsectionpertainstoapermitprograminpartDTitleIoftheCAA;and2)anysubmissionsrequiredbysection110(a)(2)(I),whichpertaintothenonattainmentplanningrequirementsofpartDTitleIoftheCAA.ThedeterminationsrequiredbytheMarch2005ConsentDecreeexcludedanydeterminationregardingsuchportionofsection110(a)(2)(C)andsection110(a)(2)(I);therefore,thisactiondoesnotcoverthesespecificelementsforanyoftheNAAQSatissue.Thisactionalsodoesnotaddresstherequirementsof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)forthe1997ozoneandPM2.5NAAQSsincetherequirementsof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)fortheseNAAQShavebeenaddressedbyseparatefindingsissuedbyEPA.SeeApril25,2005(70FR21147).OnJuly6,2011,theEPAAdministratorsignedtheCross-StateAirPollutionRule(CSAPR)toaddress110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)fortheseNAAQS.SeeCSAPRwebsiteathttp://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/index.html.Thisactionalsodoesnotincludetheportionsof110(a)(2)(C),(D)(i)(II),and(J)astheypertaintoapermitprogramasrequiredbyPartCofTitleIoftheCAA,andtheportionof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)asitpertainstovisibility.Theseportionsoftheseelementswillbeaddressedbyseparateactions.2006PM2.5NAAQSOnOctober17,2006(71FR61144),EPArevisedthe24-houraveragePM2.5primaryandsecondaryNAAQSfrom65tg/m3to35ig/m3.Asrequiredbysection110(a)(l)oftheCAA,the110(a)(2)submittalswereduewithinthreeyearsafterpromulgationoftherevisedstandard,2withtheexceptionofsections110(a)(2)(C)pertainingtothepartDpermitprogramand110(a)(2)(I)forthesamereasonsdiscussedforthe1997standard.Thisactionalsodoesnotaddresstherequirementsof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)forthe2006PM2.5NAAQSsincetherequirementsof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)havebeenaddressedbyfindingsissuedbyEPA.SeeJune9,2010(75FR32673).TheCSAPRsignedonJuly6,2011addresses110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)forthisNAAQS.SeeCSAPRwebsiteathttp://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/index.html.Thisactionalsodoesnotincludetheportionsof1l0(a)(2)(C),(D)(i)(II),and(J)astheypertaintoapermitprogramasrequiredbyPartCofTitleIoftheCAA,andtheportionof110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)asitpertainstovisibility.Theseportionsoftheseelementswillbeaddressedbyseparateactions.SCOPEOFINFRASTRUCTURESIPSEPAiscurrentlyactinguponSIPsthataddresstheinfrastructurerequirementsofCAAsection110(a)(1)and(2)forozoneandPM2.5NAAQSforvariousstatesacrossthecountry.CommentersonEPA’srecentproposalsforsomestatesraisedconcernsaboutEPAstatementsthatitwasnotaddressingcertainsubstantiveissuesinthecontextofactingontheinfrastructureSIPsubmissions.’ThosecommentersspecificallyraisedconcernsinvolvingprovisionsinexistingSIPsandwithEPA’sstatementsinotherproposalsthatitwouldaddresstwoissuesseparatelyandnotaspartofactionsontheinfrastructureSIPsubmissions:(i)existingprovisionsrelatedtoexcessemissionsduringperiodsofstart-up,shutdown,ormalfunctionatsources,thatmaybecontrarytotheCAAandEPA’spoliciesaddressingsuchexcessemissions(“SSM”);and(ii)existingprovisionsrelatedto“director’svariance”or“director’sdiscretion”thatpurporttopermitrevisionstoSIPapprovedemissionslimitswithlimitedpublicprocessorwithoutrequiringfurtherapprovalbyEPA,thatmaybecontrarytotheCAA(“director’sdiscretion”).EPAnotesthattherearetwoothersubstantiveissuesforwhichEPAlikewisestatedinotherproposalsthatitwouldaddresstheissuesseparately:(i)existingprovisionsforminorsourcenewsourcereviewprogramsthatmaybeinconsistentwiththerequirementsoftheCAAandEPA’sregulationsthatpertaintosuchprograms(“minorsourceNSR”);and(ii)existingprovisionsforPreventionofSignificantDeteriorationprogramsthatmaybeinconsistentwithcurrentrequirementsofEPA’s“FinalNSRImprovementRule,”67FR80186(December31,2002),asamendedby72FR32526(June13,2007)(“NSRReform”).Inlightofthecomments,EPAnowbelievesthatitsstatementsinvariousproposedactionsoninfrastructureSIPswithrespecttothesefourindividualissuesshouldbeexplainedingreaterdepth.EPAintendedthestatementsintheotherproposalsconcerningthesefourissuesmerelytobeinformational,andtoprovidegeneralnoticeofthepotentialexistenceofprovisionswithintheexistingSIPsofsomestatesthatmightrequirefuturecorrectiveaction.EPAdidnotwantstates,regulatedentities,ormembersofthepublictobeunderthemisconceptionthattheAgency’sapprovaloftheinfrastructureSIPsubmissionofagivenstateshouldbeinterpretedasareapprovalofcertaintypesofprovisionsthatmightexistburiedinthelargerexistingSIPforsuchSee,CommentsofMidwestEnvironmentalDefenseCenter,datedMay31,2011.Docket#EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179(adversecommentsonproposalsforthreestatesinRegion5).EPAnotesthatthesepubliccommentsonanotherproposalarenotrelevanttothisrulemakinganddonothavetobedirectlyaddressedinthisrulemaking.3state.Thus,forexample,EPAexplicitlynotedthattheAgencybelievesthatsomestatesmayhaveexistingSIPapprovedSSMprovisionsthatarecontrarytotheCAAandEPApolicy,butthat“inthisrulemaking,EPAisnotproposingtoapproveordisapproveanyexistingStateprovisionswithregardtoexcessemissionsduringSSMofoperationsatfacilities.”EPAfurtherexplained,forinformationalpurposes,that“EPAplanstoaddresssuchStateregulationsinthefuture.”EPAmadesimilarstatements,forsimilarreasons,withrespecttothedirector’sdiscretion,minorsourceNSR,andNSRReformissues.EPA’sobjectivewastomakeclearthatapprovalofaninfrastructureSIPfortheseozoneandPM2.5NAAQSshouldnotbeconstruedasexplicitorimplicitre-approvalofanyexistingprovisionsthatrelatetothesefoursubstantiveissues.Unfortunately,thecommentersandothersevidentlyinterpretedthesestatementstomeanthatEPAconsideredactionupontheSSMprovisionsandtheotherthreesubstantiveissuestobeintegralpartsofactingonaninfrastructureSIPsubmission,andthereforethatEPAwasmerelypostponingtakingfinalactionontheissueinthecontextoftheinfrastructureSIPs.ThiswasnotEPA’sintention.Tothecontrary,EPAonlymeanttoconveyitsawarenessofthepotentialforcertaintypesofdeficienciesinexistingSIPs,andtopreventanymisunderstandingthatitwasreapprovinganysuchexistingprovisions.EPA’sintentionwastoconveyitspositionthatthestatutedoesnotrequirethatinfrastructureSIPSaddressthesespecificsubstantiveissuesinexistingSIPsandthattheseissuesmaybedealtwithseparately,outsidethecontextofactingontheinfrastructureSIPsubmissionofastate.Tobeclear,EPAdidnotmeantoimplythatitwasnottakingafullfinalagencyactionontheinfrastructureSIPsubmissionwithrespecttoanysubstantiveissuethatEPAconsiderstobearequiredpartofactingonsuchsubmissionsundersection110(k)orundersection110(c).GiventheconfusionevidentlyresultingfromEPA’sstatementsinthoseproposals,however,wewanttoexplainmorefullytheAgency’sreasonsforconcludingthatthesefourpotentialsubstantiveissuesinexistingSIPsmaybeaddressedseparately.TherequirementfortheSIPsubmissionsatissuearisesoutofCAAsectionlI0(a)(1).ThatprovisionrequiresthatstatesmustmakeaSIPsubmission“within3years(orsuchshorterperiodastheAdministratormayprescribe)afterthepromulgationofanationalprimaryambientairqualitystandard(oranyrevisionthereof)”andthattheseSIPSaretoprovideforthe“implementation,maintenance,andenforcement”ofsuchNAAQS.Section1l0(a)(2)includesalistofspecificelementsthat“[e]achsuchplan”submissionmustmeet.EPAhashistoricallyreferredtotheseparticularsubmissionsthatstatesmustmakeafterthepromulgationofaneworrevisedNAAQSas“infrastructureSIPs.”Thisspecifictermdoesnotappearinthestatute,butEPAusesthetermtodistinguishthisparticulartypeofSIPsubmissiondesignedtoaddressbasicstructuralrequirementsofaSIPfromothertypesofSIPsubmissionsdesignedtoaddressotherdifferentrequirements,suchas“nonattainmentSIP”submissionsrequiredtoaddressthenonattainmentplanningrequirementsofpartD,“regionalhazeSIP”submissionsrequiredtoaddressthevisibilityprotectionrequirementsofCAAsection169A,newsourcereviewpermittingprogramsubmissionsrequiredtoaddresstherequirementsofpartD,andahostofotherspecifictypesofSIPsubmissionsthataddressotherspecificmatters.Althoughsection110(a)(1)addressesthetimingandgeneralrequirementsforthese4infrastructureSIPs,andsection11O(a)(2)providesmoredetailsconcerningtherequiredcontentsoftheseinfrastructureSIPs,EPAbelievesthatmanyofthespecificstatutoryprovisionsarefaciallyambiguous.Inparticular,thelistofrequiredelementsprovidedinsection11O(a)(2)containsawidevarietyofdisparateprovisions,someofwhichpertaintorequiredlegalauthority,someofwhichpertaintorequiredsubstantiveprovisions,andsomeofwhichpertaintorequirementsforbothauthorityandsubstantiveprovisions.2Someoftheelementsofsection11O(a)(2)arerelativelystraightforward,butothersclearlyrequireinterpretationbyEPAthroughrulemaking,orrecommendationsthroughguidance,inordertogivespecificmeaningforaparticularNAAQS.3Notwithstandingthatsection11O(a)(2)statesthat“each”SIPsubmissionmustmeetthelistofrequirementstherein,EPAhaslongnotedthatthisliteralreadingofthestatuteisinternallyinconsistent,insofarassection11O(a)(2)(I)pertainstononattainmentSIPrequirementsthatcouldnotbemetonthescheduleprovidedfortheseSIPsubmissionsinsectionl1O(a)(1).4ThisillustratesthatEPAmustdeterminewhichprovisionsofsection11O(a)(2)maybeapplicableforagiveninfrastructureSIPsubmission.Similarly,EPAhaspreviouslydecidedthatitcouldtakeactionondifferentpartsofthelarger,general“infrastructureSIP”foragivenNAAQSwithoutconcurrentactiononallsubsections,suchassection11O(a)(2)(D)(i),becausetheAgencybifurcatedtheactionontheselatter“interstatetransport”provisionswithinsection11O(a)(2)andworkedwithstatestoaddresseachofthefourprongsofsection11O(a)(2)(D)(i)withsubstantiveadministrativeactionsproceedingondifferenttrackswithdifferentschedules.5ThisillustratesthatEPAmayconcludethatsubdividingtheapplicablerequirementsofsectionllO(a)(2)intoseparateSIPactionsmaysometimesbeappropriateforagivenNAAQSwhereaspecificsubstantiveactionisnecessitated,beyondameresubmissionaddressingbasicstructuralaspectsofthestate’sSIP.Finally,EPAnotesthatnoteveryelementofsectionllO(a)(2)wouldberelevant,orasrelevant,orrelevantinthesameway,foreachneworrevisedNAAQSandtheattendantinfrastructureSIPsubmissionforthatNAAQS.Forexample,themonitoringrequirementsthatmightbenecessaryforpurposesofsection11O(a)(2)(B)foroneNAAQScouldbeverydifferentthanwhatmightbenecessaryforadifferentpollutant.Thus,thecontentofan2Forexample,section110(a)(2)(E)providesthatstatesmustprovideassurancesthattheyhaveadequatelegalauthorityunderstateandlocallawtocarryouttheSIP;section1l0(a)(2)(C)providesthatstatesmusthaveasubstantiveprogramtoaddresscertainsourcesasrequiredbypartCoftheCAA;section110(a)(2)(G)providesthatstatesmusthavebothlegalauthoritytoaddressemergenciesandsubstantivecontingencyplansintheeventofsuchanemergency.Forexample,sectionllO(a)(2)(D)(i)requiresEPAtobesurethateachstate’sSIPcontainsadequateprovisionstopreventsignificantcontributiontononattainmentoftheNAAQSinotherstates.ThisprovisioncontainsnumeroustermsthatrequiresubstantialrulemakingbyEPAinordertodetenninesuchbasicpointsaswhatconstitutessignificantcontribution.See,e.g.,“RuleToReduceInterstateTransportofFineParticulateMatterandOzone(CleanAirInterstateRule);RevisionstoAcidRainProgram;RevisionstotheNOxSIPCall;FinalRule,”70FR25162(May12,2005)(defining,amongotherthmgs,thephrase“contributesignificantlytononattainment”).See,e.g.,Id.,70FR25162,at63—65(May12,2005)(explainingrelationshipbetweentimingrequirementofsection1l0(a)(2)(D)versussection110(a)(2)(I)).EPAissuedseparateguidancetostateswithrespecttoSIPsubmissionstomeetsection1lO(a)(2)(D)(i)forthe1997ozoneand1997PM2.5NAAQS.See,“GuidanceforStateImplementationPlan(SIP)SubmissionstoMeetCurrentOutstandingObligationsUnderSection110(a)(2)(D)(i)forthe8-HourOzoneandPM2.5NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards,”fromWilliamT.Harnett,DirectorAirQualityPolicyDivisionOAQPS,toRegionalAirDivisionDirector,RegionsI-X,datedAugust15,2006.5infrastructureSIPsubmissiontomeetthiselementfromastatemightbeverydifferentforanentirelynewNAAQS,versusaminorrevisiontoanexistingNAAQS.6Similarly,EPAnotesthatothertypesofSIPsubmissionsrequiredunderthestatutealsomustmeettherequirementsofsection110(a)(2),andthisalsodemonstratestheneedtoidentifytheapplicableelementsforotherSIPsubmissions.Forexample,nonattainmentSIPsrequiredbypartDlikewisehavetomeettherelevantsubsectionsofsection110(a)(2)suchassection110(a)(2)(A)or(E).Bycontrast,itisclearthatnonattainmentSIPswouldnotneedtomeettheportionofsection110(a)(2)(C)thatpertainstopartC,thePSDrequirementapplicableinattainmentareas.NonattainmentSIPsrequiredbypartDalsowouldnotneedtoaddresstherequirementsofsection110(a)(2)(G)withrespecttoemergencyepisodes,assuchrequirementswouldnotbelimitedtononattainmentareas.Asthisexampleillustrates,eachtypeofSIPsubmissionmayimplicatesomesubsectionsofsection110(a)(2)andnotothers.Giventhepotentialforambiguityofthestatutorylanguageofsection110(a)(1)and(2),EPAbelievesthatitisappropriateforEPAtointerpretthatlanguageinthecontextofactingontheinfrastructureSIPsforagivenNAAQS.Becauseoftheinherentambiguityofthelistofrequirementsinsection110(a)(2),EPAhasadoptedanapproachinwhichitreviewsinfrastructureSIPsagainstthislistofelements“asapplicable.”Inotherwords,EPAassumesthatCongresscouldnothaveintendedthateachandeverySIPsubmission,regardlessofthepurposeofthesubmissionortheNAAQSinquestion,wouldmeeteachoftherequirements,ormeeteachoftheminthesameway.EPAelectedtouseguidancetomakerecommendationsforinfrastructureSIPsfortheseNAAQS.OnOctober2,2007,EPAissuedguidancemakingrecommendationsfortheinfrastructureSIPsubmissionsforboththe19978-hourozoneNAAQSandthe1997PM25NAAQS.7Withinthisguidancedocument,EPAdescribedthedutyofstatestomakethesesubmissionstomeetwhattheAgencycharacterizedasthe“infrastructure”elementsforSIPs,whichitfurtherdescribedasthe“basicSIPrequirements,includingemissionsinventories,monitoring,andmodelingtoassureattainmentandmaintenanceofthestandards.”8AsfurtheridentificationofthesebasicstructuralSIPrequirements,“attachmentA”totheguidancedocumentincludedashortdescriptionofthevariouselementsofsection110(a)(2)andadditionalinformationaboutthetypesofissuesthatEPAconsideredgermaneinthecontextofsuchinfrastructureSIPs.EPAemphasizedthatthedescriptionofthebasicrequirementslistedonattachmentAwasnotintended“toconstituteaninterpretationof’therequirements,andwasmerelya“briefdescriptionoftherequiredelements.”9EPAalsostateditsbeliefthatwithoneexception,theserequirementswere“relativelyselfexplanatory,andpastexperiencewithSIPsforotherNAAQS6Forexample,implementationofthe1997PM2.5NAAQSrequiredthedeploymentofasystemofnewmonitorstomeasureambientlevelsofthatnewindicatorspeciesforthenewNAAQS.See,“GuidanceonSIPElementsRequiredUnderSection1lO(a)(1)and(2)forthe19978-hourOzoneandPM2.5NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards,”fromWilliamT.Hamett,DirectorAirQualityPolicyDivision,toAirDivisionDirectors,RegionsI—X,datedOctober2,2007(the“2007Guidance”).8Id.,atpage2.Id.,atattachmentA,page1.6shouldenablestatestomeettheserequirementswithassistancefromEPARegions.”°Fortheoneexceptiontothatgeneralassumption,however,i.e.,howstatesshouldproceedwithrespecttotherequirementsofsection110(a)(2)(G)forthe1997PM2.5NAAQS,EPAgavemuchmorespecificrecommendations.ButforotherinfrastructureSIPsubmittals,andforcertainelementsofthesubmittalsforthe1997PM2.5NAAQS,EPAassumedthateachStatewouldworkwithitscorrespondingEPAregionalofficetorefinethescopeofaState’ssubmittalbasedonanassessmentofhowtherequirementsofsectionl10(a)(2)shouldreasonablyapplytothebasicstructureofthestate’sSIPfortheNAAQSinquestion.OnSeptember25,2009,EPAissuedguidancetomakerecommendationstostateswithrespecttotheinfrastructureSIPsforthe2006PM2.5NAAQS.”Inthe2009Guidance,EPAaddressedanumberofadditionalissuesthatwerenotgermanetotheinfrastructureSIPsforthe19978-hourozoneand1997PM2.5NAAQS,butweregennanetotheseSIPsubmissionsforthe2006PM2.5NAAQS,e.g.,therequirementsofsection110(a)(2)(D)(i)thatEPAhadbifurcatedfromtheotherinfrastructureelementsforthosespecific19978-hourozoneandPM2.5NAAQS.Significantly,neitherthe2007Guidancenorthe2009GuidanceexplicitlyrefertotheSSM,director’sdiscretion,minorsourceNSR,orNSRReformissuesasamongspecificsubstantiveissuesEPAexpectedstatestoaddressinthecontextoftheinfrastructureSIPs,nordidEPAgiveanymorespecificrecommendationswithrespecttohowstatesmightaddresssuchissueseveniftheyelectedtodoso.TheSSManddirector’sdiscretionissuesimplicatesection110(a)(2)(A),andtheminorsourceNSRandNSRReformissuesimplicatesection110(a)(2)(C).Inthe2007Guidance,however,EPAdidnotindicatetostatesthatitintendedtointerprettheseprovisionsasrequiringasubstantivesubmissiontoaddressthesespecificissuesinthecontextoftheinfrastructureSIPsfortheseNAAQS.Instead,EPA’s2007GuidancemerelyindicateditsbeliefthatthestatesshouldmakesubmissionsinwhichtheyestablishedthattheyhavethebasicSIPstructurenecessarytoimplement,maintain,andenforcetheNAAQS.EPAbelievesthatstatescanestablishthattheyhavethebasicSIPstructure,notwithstandingthattheremaybepotentialdeficiencieswithintheexistingSIP.Thus,EPA’sotherproposalsmentionedtheseissuesnotbecausetheAgencyconsidersthemissuesthatmustbeaddressedinthecontextofaninfrastructureSIPasrequiredbysection110(a)(1)and(2),butratherbecauseEPAwantedtobeclearthatitconsidersthesepotentialexistingSIPproblemsasseparatefromthependinginfrastructureSIPactions.EPAbelievesthatthisapproachtotheinfrastructureSIPrequirementisreasonable,becauseitwouldnotbefeasibletoreadsection110(a)(1)and(2)torequireatoptobottom,stemtostern,reviewofeachandeveryprovisionofanexistingSIPmerelyforpurposesofassuringJOId.,atpage4.Inretrospct,theconcernsraisedbyconunenterswithrespecttoEPA’sapproachtosomesubstantiveissuesindicatesthatthestatuteisnotso“selfexplanatory,”andindeedissufficientlyambiguousthatEPAneedstointerpretitinordertoexplainwhythesesubstantiveissuesdonotneedtobeaddressedinthecontextofinfrastructureSIPsandmaybeaddressedatothertimesandbyothermeans.‘See,“GuidanceonSIPElementsRequiredUnderSections11O(a)(1)and(2)forthe200624-HourFineParticle(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS),”fromWilliamT,Harnett,DirectorAirQualityPolicyDivision,toRegionalAirDivisionDirectors,RegionsI-X,datedSeptember25,2009(the“2009Guidance”).7thatthestateinquestionhasthebasicstructuralelementsforafunctioningSIPforaneworrevisedNAAQS.BecauseSIPshavegrownbyaccretionoverthedecadesasstatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsundertheCAAhaveevolved,theymayincludesomeoutmodedprovisionsandhistoricalartifactsthat,whilenotfullyuptodate,neverthelessmaynotposeasignificantproblemforthepurposesof“implementation,maintenance,andenforcement”ofaneworrevisedNAAQSwhenEPAconsiderstheoveralleffectivenessoftheSIP.Tothecontrary,EPAbelievesthatabetterapproachisforEPAtodeterminewhichspecificSIPelementsfromsection110(a)(2)areapplicabletoaninfrastructureSIPforagivenNAAQS,andtofocusattentiononthoseelementsthataremostlikelytoneedaspecificSIPrevisioninlightoftheneworrevisedNAAQS.Thus,forexample,EPA’s2007Guidancespecificallydirectedstatestofocusontherequirementsofsection110(a)(2)(G)forthe1997PM2.5NAAQSbecauseoftheabsenceofunderlyingEPAregulationsforemergencyepisodesforthisNAAQSandananticipatedabsenceofrelevantprovisionsinexistingSIPs.Finally,EPAbelievesthatitsapproachisareasonablereadingofsection110(a)(1)and(2)becausethestatuteprovidesotheravenuesandmechanismstoaddressspecificsubstantivedeficienciesinexistingSIPs.TheseotherstatutorytoolsallowtheAgencytotakeappropriatetailoredaction,dependinguponthenatureandseverityoftheallegedSIPdeficiency.SectionllO(k)(5)authorizesEPAtoissuea“SIPcall”whenevertheAgencydeterminesthatastate’sSIPissubstantiallyinadequatetoattainormaintaintheNAAQS,tomitigateinterstatetransport,orotherwisetocomplywiththeCAA.’2Section110(k)(6)authorizesEPAtocorrecterrorsinpastactions,suchaspastapprovalsofSIPsubmissions.’3Significantly,EPA’sdeterminationthatanactionontheinfrastructureSIPisnottheappropriatetimeandplacetoaddressallpotentialexistingSIPproblemsdoesnotprecludetheAgency’ssubsequentrelianceonprovisionsinsection1lO(a)(2)aspartofthebasisforactionatalatertime.Forexample,althoughitmaynotbeappropriatetorequireastatetoeliminateallexistinginappropriatedirector’sdiscretionprovisionsinthecourseofactingontheinfrastructureSIP,EPAbelievesthatsection110(a)(2)(A)maybeamongthestatutorybasesthattheAgencycitesinthecourseofaddressingtheissueinasubsequentaction.1412EPAhasrecentlyissuedaSIPcalltorectifyaspecificSIPdeficiencyrelatedtotheSSMissue.See,“FindingofSubstantialInadequacyofImplementationPlan;CallforUtahStateImplementationPlanRevision,”74FR21639(April18,2011).13EPAhasrecentlyutilizedthisauthoritytocorrecterrorsinpastactionsonSIPsubmissionsrelatedtoPSDprograms.See,“LimitationofApprovalofPreventionofSignificantDeteriorationProvisionsConcerningGreenhouseGasEmitting-SourcesinStateImplementationPlans;FinalRule,”75FR82536(Dec.30,2010).EPAhaspreviouslyuseditsauthorityunderCAA1l0(k)(6)toremovenumerousotherSIPprovisionsthattheAgencydeterminedithadapprovedinerror.See,e.g.,61FR38,664(July25,1996)and62FR34641(June27,1997)(correctionstoAmericanSamoa,Arizona,California,Hawaii,andNevadaSIPs);69FR67062(November16,2004)(correctionstoCaliforniaSIP);and74FR57051(November3,2009)(correctionstoArizonaandNevadaSIPs).14EPAhasrecentlydisapprovedaSIPsubmissionfromColoradoonthegroundsthatitwouldhaveincludedadirector’sdiscretionprovisioninconsistentwithCAArequirements,includingsection1l0(a)(2)(A).See,e.g.,75FR42342and42344(July21,20l0)(proposeddisapprovalofdirector’sdiscretionprovisions);76FR4540(Jan.26,2011)(finaldisapprovalofsuchprovisions).8C.EPAREQUIREMENTSAsdiscussedabove,forthe19978-hourozoneandthe1997PM2.5NAAQS,statesmustprovideSIPsubmissions,orprovidecertificationthataddresssection110(a)(2)(A)through(M),withtheexceptionoftheportionof110(a)(2)(C)pertainingtoapermitprograminPartDTitleIoftheCAA,110(a)(2)(I)and(D)(i).TohelpStatesmeetthisstatutoryrequirement,EPAissuedguidanceonOctober2,2007entitled“GuidanceonSIPElementsRequiredUnderSection110(a)(1)and(2)forthe19978-HourOzoneandPM25NationalAnibientAirQualityStandards,”whichlistedthebasicelementsthatStatesmustincludeintheirSIPs.OnSeptember25,2009,EPAissuedanupdatedguidancedocumententitled“GuidanceonSIPElementsRequiredUnderSections110(a)(1)and(2)forthe200624-HourFineParticle(PM25)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS),”whichclarifies,infurtherdetail,expectationsforcertainelementstomeettherequirementsofsections110(a)(1)and(2)oftheCAAforboththe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQS.Specifically,EPAprovidedadditionalguidanceforsatisfyingthesection1l0(a)(2)(D)requirementsforthe2006PM2.5NAAQS,aswellasguidanceforsatisfyingthesection110(a)(2)(G)requirementsforboththe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQS.EPAnotes,however,thattherequirementsunder110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)NAAQSarebeingaddressedseparatelyandarenotincludedinthisaction.D.STATE’SSUBMITTALMDEprovidedmultiplesubmittalstosatisfysection110(a)(2)requirementsthatarethesubjectofthisproposedactionforthe19978-hourozoneNAAQSandthe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQS.ThesubmittalsshowninTable1addresstheinfrastructureelements,orportionsthereof,identifiedinsection110(a)(2)thatEPAisproposingtoapprove.Table1.110(a)(2)Marylandsubmittalsforthe19978-hourozoneandPM2.5NAAQS,andthe2006PM2.5NAAQSSubmittalDate19978-HourOzone1997PM2.52006PM2.5July27,2007A,B,C,D(ii),E,F,(MDSIP#07-06)G,H,J,K,L,MNovember30,G2007April3,2008A,B,C,D(ii),E,F,G,(MDSIP#08-01)H,J,K,L,MApril16,2010GGJuly21,2010A,B,C,D(ii),E,F,G,H,J,K,L,MJuly21,2010Documentationshowingpublicprocesswasmet.9E.EVALUATIONOFSTATESUBMITTALAsshowninTable1above,MDEprovidedmultiplesubmittalsforthe19978-hourozoneandPM2.5NAAQS,andforthe2006PM25NAAQS.However,thedemonstrationssubmittedbytheStateforhowitismeetingmanyoftheelementsaresubstantivelyidenticalforboththeozoneandPM25NAAQS,thereforethefollowingevaluationofeachelementpertainstoallstandardsexceptasotherwisenoted.1.Section11O(a)(2)(A)Maryland’senforceablesulfurdioxide(SO2),particulatematter,andnitrogenoxides(NOx)emissionlimitationsandothercontrolmeasuresareincludedinCodeofMarylandRegulations(COMAR)26.11AirQuality,comprisedofSIPapprovedregulations.01through.33thatspecifiesemissionsstandardsforvarioussourcecategoriesintheState.Inaddition,MarylandcitesrequirementsinitsVehicleEmissionsInspectionPrograminCOMAR11.14.08.Theseregulationsincludethecontrolmeasures,means,ortechniques,schedulesandtimetablesforcompliancerequiredbyelement110(a)(2)(A),andareadequatetoaddresstherequirementsofthiselement.EPAdoesnotconsiderSIPrequirementstriggeredbythenonattainmentareamandatesinpartDofTitleIoftheCAAtobegovernedbythesubmissiondeadlineofsection1l0(a)(l).Nevertheless,MarylandmayhaveincludedsomepreviousEPA-approvedSIPprovisionsoriginallysubmittedinresponsetopartDinitssubmissiondocumentingitscompliancewiththerequirementsofsections110(a)(l)and(2)oftheCAA.Forthepurposesofthisaction,EPAhasreviewedtheaboveidentifiedMarylandsubmittals,includinganyrulesoriginallysubmittedinresponsetopartD,orreferencesthereto,solelyforthepurposesofdeterminingwhethersuchsubmittalssupportafindingthatthestatehasmetthebasicinfrastructurerequirementsundersection110(a)(2).Asdiscussedabove,inthisaction,EPAisnotproposingtoapproveordisapproveanyexistingStateprovisionswithregardtoexcessemissionsduringSSMofoperationsatafacility.AlsoEPAisnotproposingtoapproveordisapproveanyexistingStateruleswithregardtodirector’sdiscretionorvarianceprovisions.Seethe“ScopeofInfrastructureSIPs”discussioninsectionBabove.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMaryland’senforceableemissionlimitsandothercontrolmeasuresaremeetingtherequirementsofthiselement.2.Section11O(a)(2)(B)Maryland’sauthoritytomonitorambientairqualityisfoundunder§2-l03(b)(2)and2-301(a)(l),EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland;andCOMAR26.11.04.03(specifying10methodsofmeasuringambientairqualitylevelsshallbethosespecifiedin40C.F.R.Parts50,53and58).NospecificstatutoryauthorityisnecessarytoauthorizedataanalysisorthesubmissionofsuchdatatoEPA.FederalgrantrequirementsestablishtheobligationtoprovidedatatoEPA.MDEestablishes,operates,andmaintainsanetworkofambientairmonitorsthroughoutMaryland.AllambientairmonitorsintheMarylandnetworkthatareusedtodeterminecompliancewiththeNAAQShavebeendesignatedbyEPAaseitherReferenceorEquivalentmonitors.AllambientairmonitorsintheMarylandnetworkaresubjectedtotheQualityAssurancerequirementsof40CFRPart58,AppendixA.Inaddition,allsamplersarelocatedatsitesthathavemettheminimumsitingrequirementsofPart58,AppendixE.InordertokeepEPAinformedofchangestothesamplingnetwork,MDEprovidesEPARegionIIIwithpriornotificationofanyplannedchangestothenetwork.Asneeded,detailsofthesechangesandanticipatedapprovalsofthechangesarecommunicatedtoEPA.Pursuantto40C.F.R.Part58,SubpartB,Section58.10,MDEsendstheEPARegionalAdministratoranAnnualMonitoringNetworkPlanforapprovalthatdetailsanymodificationstothenetwork.Thisplanalsoprovidesadescriptionofeachmodification,thereasonforeachmodification,andanyotherinformationrelevanttothemodifications.Section58.10alsorequiresMDE(beginningJuly1,2010)toperformandsubmittotheEPARegionalAdministratoranassessmentoftheMarylandambientairmonitoringnetworkeveryfiveyearstodetermine,ataminimum,ifthenetworkmeetsthemonitoringobjectivesdefinedin40CFR,part58,AppendixD,whethernewsitesareneeded,whetherexistingsitesarenolongerneededandcanbeterminated,andwhethernewtechnologiesareappropriateforincorporationintothenetwork.MarylandhasandwillcontinuetosubmitdatatoEPA’sAirQualitySystem(AQS).MDEcollectsandreportstoEPAallambientairqualitydataforSO2,carbonmonoxide(CO),ozone(03),nitrogendioxide(NO2),(particulatematter)PM0,andPM25.Thereportscomplywiththefederalrequirementsof40CFR58.35.Asnecessary,thesubmitteddataisreviewed,edited,validated,andenteredintotheEPAairqualitysystem(AQS)forupdatingpursuanttoprescribedAQSprocedures.TheEPAAQSreceiveseachreportwithin90daysaftertheendofthequarterlyreportingperiod.MDEanalyzessuchairqualitydatatodetermineattainmentstatusorprogress.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMaryland’sambientairqualitymonitoring,dataanalysis,andpublicavailabilityofdataismeetingtherequirementofthiselement.3.Section11O(a)(2)(C)EnforcementprovisionsandpermitprovisionsarefoundinSection2-601through2-604,EnvironmentalArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland.Asdiscussedabove,EPAwilltakeseparateactiononthefollowing:a.Theportionofsection110(a)(2)(C)forthe19978-hourozoneNAAQSasitrelatestoMaryland’sPSDpermitprogram.OnJune22,2011,Marylandsubmittedarevisionto11itsSIPthatincorporatesbyreferencethefederalPSDrequirementsunder40CFRpart52.21datedJuly1,2009.ActiononthisPSDSIPrevisionisbeingtakenseparately,andconsequently,element1lO(A)(2)(C)asitpertainstothePSDpermitprogramforthe19978-hourozoneNAAQSwillbeaddressedinthisseparateaction.b.TheportionofIl0(a)(2)(C)forthe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQSasitrelatestoMaryland’sPSDpermitprogram.ActiononthisPSDSIPrevisionisbeingtakenseparately,andconsequently,elementl10(A)(2)(C)asitpertainstothePSDpermitprogramforthe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQSwillbeaddressedinthisseparateaction.c.Therequirementsofsection110(a)(2)(C)thatpertaintoapermitprograminpartDTitleIoftheCAA.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMarylandismeetingtherequirementtoprovideforenforcementofmeasuresin110(a)(2)(A).4.Section11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)Asdiscussedabove,EPAwilltakeseparateactiononthisportionof110(a)(2)(D).5.Section11O(a)(2)(D)(ii)MarylandismeetingitsobligationspursuanttoCAAsection126(a).MarylandhasnocurrentlypendingobligationspursuanttoCAASection126(b),andMaryland’ssubmittalsciteitsbroadauthorityunderSection2-301(a)(1)EnvironmentalArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMarylandtoensurecompliancewiththerequirementsofsections126and115oftheCAA.6.Section11O(a)(2)(E)Fundingisprovidedthroughthe§105grantprocessandtheMarylandCleanAirFund(2-107EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland)composedoffundscollectedfromapplicationfees,permitfees,renewalfees,andciviloradministrativepenaltiesorfines.TheCleanAirFundmaybeusedfor(1)identifying,monitoring,andregulatingairpollutionintheState,includingprogramdevelopmentoftheseactivitiesasprovidedintheStatebudget;and(2)providinggrantstolocalgovernmentstosupplementfundingforprogramsconductedbylocalgovernmentsthatareconsistentwiththeMarylandprogram.OtherauthoritiestocanyouttheStateImplementationPlanmaybefoundunderthefollowingsectionsoftheEnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland:§2103(b)(2)AuthoritytomonitorambientairqualityintheState,§2-105(Airpollutionemergency),§2-201-206TheAirQualityControlAdvisoryCouncilconsultationprocess,12§2-301(a)(1)AuthoritytoadoptrulesandregulationsforthecontrolofairpollutionintheState,includingtesting,monitoring,recordkeeping,andreportingrequirements,§2-301(a)(2)authoritytoadoptregulationsthatestablishstandardsandprocedurestobefollowedwheneverpollutionoftheairreachesanemergencycondition,§2-302(b)Standardsinairqualitycontrolareas,§2-302(c)Ambientairqualitystandards,§2-302(d)Emissionstandardsforairqualitycontrolareas,and§2-601-614Enforcementandpenalties.Marylanddoesnothaveanyboardorbodywhichapprovesairqualitypermitsorenforcementorders.MarylanddoesnotrelyonlocalitiesforspecificSIPimplementation.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMarylandhasadequateresourcesandauthoritytomeettherequirementsofthiselement.7.Section11O(a)(2)(F)Marylandhasauthoritythrough§2-103(b)(2)EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMarylandand§2-301(a)(1)EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMarylandtorequiresourcestoreportandmonitoremissions.SpecificmonitoringrequirementsarefoundthroughoutCOMAR26.11.Thefollowingregulationspertaintoperiodicreportsonthenatureandamountsofemissionsandemissions-relateddata:COMAR26.11.01.04Testing&Monitoring;COMAR26.11.01.05RecordsandInformation;COMAR26.11.01.05-1EmissionStatements;COMAR26.11.01.07Malfunctions&OtherTemporaryIncreasesinEmissions;and,COMAR26.11.01.10CEMRequirements.Additional,specificmonitoringrequirementsforspecifictypesofsourcescanbefoundunderotherchapters.SIPapprovedCOMARscanbefoundin40CFRPart52subpartV.ThefollowingportionsoftheAnnotatedCodeofMarylandandCOMARpertaintoairqualitystandardsestablishedpursuanttotheCAAandrelatedmonitoringrequirementsanddeterminingcompliance:§2-302(b)and(c),EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMarylandandspecificmonitoringrequirementsarefoundthroughoutCOMAR26.11.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMarylandismeetingthemonitoring,reporting,andavailabilityrequirementsofthiselement.8.Section11O(a)(2)(G)TheAnnotatedCodeofMaryland,§2-105,EnvironmentalArticleaddressesairpollutionemergencieswhile§2-301providesauthoritytoadoptregulationsthatestablishstandardsandprocedurestobefollowedwheneverpollutionoftheairreachesanemergencycondition.TheAnnotatedCodeofMaryland§2-604(administrativecorrectiveorderauthority)and§2-609(a)(civilinjunctiveauthority)areusedtoaddressaccidentalorotherreleasesthatarenotauthorized13bystatute,regulationorpermitoroccurinconjunctionwithviolationsofexistingregulatoryrequirements.RegulationsforMaryland’sEmergencyEpisodeSystemcanbefoundinCOMAR26.11.05AirPollutionEpisodeSystemcodifiedat40CFR52.1070(c).Forozone,MDE’ssubmittaldatedNovember30,2007statesthatCOMAR26.11.05,AirPollutionEpisodeSystem,currentlyintheSIPandcodifiedat40CFR52.1070(c),isadequatetomeettherequirementforthiselementsinceemergencyactionlevelsrelatedtothe1997ozonestandardwerenotaffectedbytherevisedozonestandard.ForPM25,EPA’sSeptember25,2009guidance,describedinSectionC(EPARequirements),above,providesclarificationthatstatesthathaveairqualitycontrolregionsidentifiedaseitherPriorityI,PriorityIAorPriorityIIbythe“PreventionofAirPollutionEmergencyEpisodes”rulesat40CFR51.150mustdevelopemergencyepisodecontingencyplans.TheguidancerecommendsthatuntilEPAestablishessignificantharmlevels(SHL)forPM25,statesshouldestablishtheirownSHLlevelsbasedonEPA’sFebruary12,2007issuepaperonsettingpriorityandemergencyactionlevelsandalsoconsidertherecommendedlevelssetforthinAttachmentBoftheSeptember25,2009guidance.Stateswouldberequiredtodevelopemergencyepisodeplansforanyareathathasmonitoredandrecorded24-hourPM2.5levelsgreaterthan140.4jig/rn3since2006.AstatethathasnotexceededthislevelisconsideredtobePriorityIIIinaccordancewiththeguidance,maycertifythatithasappropriategeneralemergencypowerstoaddressPM25—relatedepisodes,andisnotrequiredtoadoptspecificemergencyepisodeplansatthistime,giventheexistingmonitoredlevels.InitssubmittaldatedApril16,2010thataddressesboththe1997and2006PM2.5standards,MDEstatesthatnospecificemergencyepisodeplansarenecessarygiventhatexistingmonitoredlevelsofPM2.5havenotexceededthislevelassetforthintheguidance.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMarylandismeetingtherequirementsofthiselement.9.Section11O(a)(2)(H)Section2-301(a)(1)EnvironmentArticleoftheAnnotatedCodeofMarylandallowstheStatebroadauthoritytomakerevisionstoSIPsasnecessaryto:a)takeaccountofrevisionstotheNAAQS;b)complywithadditionalCAArequirements;or,c)addressEPA’sfinding(s)wheneverEPAfindsthattheState’sSIPisinadequatetoattaintheNAAQS.Maryland’sSIPisessentiallyacompilationofregulations.TheauthoritytodeveloporreviseaSIPisbasedontheauthoritytoadoptnewregulationsandreviseexistingregulationstomeettheNAAQS.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMarylandismeetingtherequirementstoreviseitsSIPasnecessary.14—S10.Section110(a)(2)(J)COMAR26.11.26providesalegalplatformforthevariousconsultationproceduresthathavebeendevelopedbetweentheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE),MarylandDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT),andMetropolitanPlanningOrganizations(MPOs).TheMPOsprovidetheforumforconsultationwithlocalgovernments.Maryland’sMPOsare:(1)theBaltimoreRegionalTransportationBoard(BRTB);(2)theNationalCapitalTransportationPlanningBoard(TPB)fortheWashingtonregion;(3)theWilmingtonAreaPlanningCouncil(WILMAPCO)forNewCastleCounty,DelawareandCecilCounty,Maryland,and,(4)theHagerstownlEasternPanhandle(HEP)fortheHagerstownarea,whichincludesWashingtonCounty,MarylandandthecountiesofBerkeleyandJeffersoninWestVirginia.Thefollowingadditionalauthoritiesalsoincludeprovisionsforconsultation:a.TheAirQualityControlAdvisoryCouncilconsultationprocess(2-201-206EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland).b.MetropolitanWashingtonAirQualityCommittee(MWAQC)wascertifiedin1991bychiefexecutivesofMaryland,VirginiaandtheDistrictofColumbiaastheentityresponsibleforcarryingouttheregionalplanningrequirementsoftheCleanAirActAmendmentsof1990(membershipincludeslocalelectedofficials).c.InterstateAirQualityCouncil(IAQC)MemorandumofUnderstandingsigned3/24/05bytheGovernorsofMaryland,VirginiaandtheDistrictofColumbia.d.COMAR26.11.17nonattainmentNewSourceReviewrequirements;PSDpermitrequirementsunderCOMAR26.11.06.14.Section127requiresthatthestatenotifythepublicofanyNAAQSexceedences,advisethepublicofhealthhazardsassociatedwithsuchpollution,andincludemeasurestoenhancepublicawarenessofmeasuresthatcanbetakentopreventexceedances.MDEprovidesadvancenoticeofairqualityeventstothepublictominimizeexposuretounhealthyairbyforecastingdailyozoneandPM2.5levelsthrougheitheritsairqualitytelephonehotline,emailnotifications,orthroughcustomizedairalertsonthewebthroughCleanAirPartners,aswellasahistoricaldisplayofpastairqualityinformationtoallowthepublictomonitorlongtermairquality.Theseactionsareadequatetomeetthesection127requirements.Asdiscussedabove,EPAwilltakeseparateactiononthefollowing:a.Theportionofsection110(a)(2)(C)forthe19978-hourozoneNAAQSasitrelatestoMaryland’sPSDpermitprogram.OnJune22,2011,MarylandsubmittedarevisiontoitsSIPthatincorporatesbyreferencethefederalPSDrequirementsin40CFRpart52.21datedJuly1,2009.ActiononthisPSDSIPrevisionisbeingtakenseparately,andconsequently,element110(A)(2)(C)asitpertainstothePSDpermitprogramfor15the19978-hourozoneNAAQSwillbeaddressedinthisseparateaction.b.Theportionof110(a)(2)(C)forthe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQSasitrelatestoMaryland’sPSDpermitprogram.ActiononthisPSDSIPrevisionisbeingtakenseparately,andconsequently,element1l0(A)(2)(C)asitpertainstothePSDpermitprogramforthe1997and2006PM2.5NAAQSwillbeaddressedinthisseparateaction.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMarylandismeetingtherequirementtoprovideforconsultationandparticipationbyaffectedlocalentities.11.Section11O(a)(2)(K)Section§2-302EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMarylandprovidesauthoritytosetairqualitystandards.InherentintheobligationtomeettheNAAQSistheauthorityfortheDepartmenttoperformmodelingasrequiredundertheCAAtodemonstrateattainment.MarylandwillcontinuetosubmitairqualitymodelingdataaspartofMaryland’srelevantSIPsubmissionsinaccordancewiththeCleanAirActandthroughfederalgrantcommitments.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMarylandismeetingthemodelinganddatasubmissionrequirementsofthiselement.12.Section11O(a)(2)(L)AStatemustrequireanownerofamajorstationarysourcetopay,asaconditionofanypermitrequiredundertheCAA,afeesufficienttocoverthereasonablecostofreviewingandactinguponanypermitapplication,and,iftheownerreceivesapermit,thereasonablecostsofimplementingandenforcingthetermsandconditionsofthepermit(notincludingcourtcostsassociatedwithenforcement),untilfeerequirementissupersededbyEPAapprovalofaTitleVfeeprogram.Maryland’sTitleVfeeprogramhasbeenapproved,thereforethisfeerequirementismetthroughtheState’sTitleVprogram.13.Section11O(a)(2)(M)BroadauthorityisprovidedtoMDEunder§2-301(a)(l)EnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMarylandandCOMAR26.11.26forconsultationforconformitypurposes.Inaddition,theMWAQCwascertifiedin1991bychiefexecutivesofMaryland,VirginiaandtheDistrictofColumbiaastheentityresponsibleforcarryingouttheregionalplanningrequirementsoftheCleanAirActAmendmentsof1990(membershipincludeslocalelectedofficials).TheMetropolitanMPOsprovidetheforumforconsultationwithlocalgovernments-theseare(1)theBaltimoreRegionalTransportationBoard(BRTB)andtheInteragencyConsultationGroup(ICG);(2)the16NationalCapitalTPBfortheWashingtonregion;(3)theWilmingtonAreaPlanningCouncil(WILMAPCO)forNewCastleCounty,DelawareandCecilCounty,Maryland;and,(4)theHEPfortheHagerstownarea,whichincludesWashingtonCounty,MarylandandthecountiesofBerkeleyandJeffersoninWestVirginia.TheIAQCMemorandumofUnderstandingsigned3/24/05bytheGovernorsofMaryland,VirginiaandtheDistrictofColumbiaalsoprovidesforconsultation.TheAnnotatedCodeofMarylandsection2-301(a)(1)providesbroadauthorityforconsultationandparticipationbylocalpoliticalsubdivisionsaffectedbytheplan.TheMPO’sprovidetheforumforconsultationwithlocalgovernments,andarecomprisedoftheMWAQC,theBaltimoreRegionalTransportationBoardandtheInteragencyConsultationGroup,theNationalCapitalTransportationPlanningBoard,theWilmingtonAreaPlanningCouncilforNewCastleCountyandCecilCountyforOzone,andtheHagerstown/EasternPanhandlefortheHagerstownarea.AdditionalconsultationandparticipationisthroughtheInterstateAirQualityCommitteeMemorandumofUnderstandingsignedMarch24,2005forMaryland,Virginia,andtheDistrictofColumbia.BaseduponEPA’sreviewoftheabovereferencedsubmittals,EPAisproposingtodeterminethatMaryland’spublicparticipationrequirementsandproceduresfulfilltherequirementsforconsultationwithlocalpoliticalsubdivisionsaffectedbytheplan.F.CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDEDAGENCYACTIONEPA’sanalysisofMaryland’sinfrastructuresubmittalsforthe19978-hourozoneandPM2.5NAAQSandthe2006PM2.5NAAQSconcludesthatMaryland’ssubmittalsmeettherequirementsforsection110(a)(2)(A),(B),(C),(D)(ii),(E),(F),(G),(H),(J),(K),(L),and(M),orportionsthereof.ItisrecommendedthatarulemakingbepreparedproposingapprovalofMaryland’sinfrastructuresubmittalsforthe19978-hourozoneandPM2.5NAAQS,andthe2006PM2.5NAAQS.17