UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DATE: June 29, 2016 

SUBJECT: Technical Support Document for the District of Columbia State Implementation 

Plan Revision for Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

FROM: Ruth Knapp /s/, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office of Air Program Planning

TO: File for SIP Docket- EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0350

THRU: Cristina Fernández/s/, Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning 

I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on a state implementation 

plan (SIP) revision submittal made by the District of Columbia (the District) to meet the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2012 annual fine particulate 

matter national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards). This technical support 

document (TSD) provides EPA’s rationale for approving the District’s infrastructure submittal

dated December 28, 2015.

II. BACKGROUND

Particle pollution, also called particulate matter (PM), is a complex mixture of extremely small 

particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles can reach the deepest 

regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health 

problems. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation’s cities 

and national parks. Fine particles, or particles with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns 

(PM2.5), can be emitted directly into the atmosphere, or they can form from chemical reactions of 

precursor gases including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), certain volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), and ammonia. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated PM2.5 NAAQS for the first time, specifically a new 24-hour 

standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) and a new annual standard of at 15 μg/m3. 
2

62 FR 38652. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the standards for PM2.5, tightening the 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard to 35 μg/m3, and retaining the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 μg/m3. 71 FR 61144. 

Subsequently, on December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the level of the primary annual PM2.5

NAAQS to 12 μg/m3. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).1 

Pursuant to section 110(a) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs that provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of new or revised NAAQS within three years 

following the promulgation of such NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS. States typically 

have met many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA through 

earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous standards of the same pollutant. Section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA lists specific elements that states must meet or continue to meet in these 

SIP submissions. The requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as requirements for 

modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. To satisfy CAA section 110(a), states must provide “infrastructure 

SIP submissions” or provide a certification that the existing SIP contains provisions addressing 

relevant infrastructure SIP elements from sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the CAA. 

On September 13, 2013, EPA issued guidance to help states to develop and submit their 

infrastructure SIP revisions to comply with the provisions of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2).2 

The non-binding guidance provides recommendations for air agencies to develop infrastructure 

SIP revisions for various existing NAAQS, including the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and any 

new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future. On March 17, 2016 EPA also issued a 

memorandum related specifically to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

known as the “good neighbor” or interstate transport provision. 

3

III. EPA’s Approach to Reviewing Infrastructure SIPS

EPA is acting upon the District’s December 28, 2015 SIP submission that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 

3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such 

NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 

requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA’s taking any action other than 

 

1

In EPA’s 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS revision, EPA left unchanged the existing secondary standards for PM2.5 to address 

welfare PM-related effects such as visibility impairment, ecological effects, damage to materials and climate 

impacts. This includes an annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3 and a 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3.

2 EPA’s guidance is available online at: 

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_

FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.

3 March 17, 2016 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page to Regional Air Division Directors, Subject: Information on 

the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards Under Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
3

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific 

elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the 

term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions 

to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional 

haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of 

section 169A of the CAA, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to 

address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 

variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive program provisions.4 EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions 

are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required 

for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission. 

The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a 

given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

“each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that 

this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the CAA, which specifically address 

nonattainment SIP requirements.5 Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address 

nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) of the CAA requires EPA 

to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator 

promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA 

allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.6

 

4

 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA provides that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA provides 

that states must have a SIP approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; 

and section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well 

as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

5 See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163 – 65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

6

 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) of the CAA is heightened by the fact that various subparts 

of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for 

various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) of the CAA provides specific dates for submission of emissions 

inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after 
4

This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in 

a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable 

for a particular infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure 

SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 

SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. 

Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such 

submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.7 Similarly, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure 

SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.8

Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP 

submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of 

section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or 

revised NAAQS. The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS 

therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to 

meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very 

different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.9

EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other 

types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) 

that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) of 

the CAA requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the 

 

promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

7 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source 

Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action approving the 

structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the state separately to meet the requirements of EPA’s 

2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013) 

(EPA’s final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS).

8 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and 

took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of 

Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 submittal.

9 For example, implementation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new 

monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
5

“applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP 

submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission 

limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and 

authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not 

apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D 

planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate 

some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. 

In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the 

relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions 

against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for 

that particular NAAQS.

Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and 

in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for particular elements.10 EPA most recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).11 EPA developed this document to 

provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. 

Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to 

meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.12 The 

guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections 

of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. 

 

10 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. 

EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate. 

11 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

12 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court 

agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected 

not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is 

neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no 

impact on a state’s CAA obligations.
6

Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for 

infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive 

requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 

orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure 

SIP submissions to ensure that the state’s SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory 

requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state’s permitting or enforcement 

program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board 

or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive 

requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the 

provisions of section 128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD 

program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focus upon the structural PSD 

program requirements contained in part C and EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources 

and NSR pollutants, including green house gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA’s review of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission focuses on assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a 

program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPAapproved minor new source review program and whether the program addresses the pollutants 

relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state’s 

existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations that pertain to such programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address 

possible deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM);13 (ii) 

 

13

 Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA’s interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of 

affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for 

Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction,” 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a result, EPA’s 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no 
7

existing provisions related to “director’s variance” or “director’s discretion” that may be contrary 

to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for 

PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA’s “Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 

2007) (NSR Reform). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission 

without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and 

may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.

14 It is important to 

note that EPA’s approval of a state’s infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as 

explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described.

EPA’s approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements 

that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of 

a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to 

read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as 

requiring review of each and every provision of a state’s existing SIP against all requirements in 

the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the 

basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA 

have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These 

provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 

purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when 

EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better 

approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon 

monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA, because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, 

an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of 

the CAA.

Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based 

on a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues 

and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other 

statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA authorizes EPA to issue a 

“SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to attain 

 

longer represents the EPA’s view concerning the validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light of the 

requirements of section 113 and section 304.

14 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that 

contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for excess emissions during SSM 

events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA 

requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP. 
8

or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.15 

Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.16 Significantly, EPA’s determination that an action on a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on provisions in section 

110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the 

course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.17

IV. SUMMARY OF STATE SUBMITTAL

On December 28, 2015, the District submitted a SIP revision to satisfy the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIP revision 

submittal addresses the following infrastructure elements for the implementation of the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. The infrastructure SIP submittal does not address section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, since 

this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 

110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process if necessary. 

V. EPA’s COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

EPA evaluated the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal for technical and 

administrative completeness, in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA found that 

the submittal is technically incomplete for the portions of the infrastructure elements in section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) relating to the permitting program for PSD, because the 

District has not adequately addressed the requirements of part C of title I of the CAA for having 

a SIP approved PSD program. EPA found the remainder of the District’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal to be administratively and technically complete. On May 11, 2016, EPA sent a letter

 

15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call for Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment 

of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for 

Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011). 

16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See

“Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 

1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 

16, 2004 (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada 

SIPs).

17 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a 

director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 

42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
9

to the District Department of Energy and Environment (DDOEE) notifying the District of this

determination. 

As a result of this incompleteness finding, EPA is not taking rulemaking action on the PSD

related portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, until the District through DDOEE submits a SIP to address the PSD permit program 

requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. EPA recognizes, however, that the District is 

already subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing the Federal PSD program to 

correct the SIP deficiency and that DDOEE would not have to take further action for the FIP 

based permitting process to continue operating, as incorporated by reference in the District SIP 

in 40 CFR 52.499.

18

 EPA’s PSD FIP for the District consists of the implementation of the 

Federal PSD program as codified in 40 CFR 52.21.

EPA does not anticipate any adverse consequences to DDOEE as a result of this incompleteness 

finding for the PSD related portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for the 

District’s 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP revision. Mandatory sanctions would not apply 

to the District under CAA section 179 because this submission is not required under title I part 

D of the CAA, nor was it required in response to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. 

EPA is not subject to any further FIP duty from our finding of incompleteness because of the 

PSD FIP that is already been approved, which addresses the SIP deficiency. 

VI. EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

EPA is approving in this rulemaking action the remainder of the District’s SIP revision submittal

addressing the remaining applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. This section of the TSD describes EPA’s rationale for taking action on the complete 

portions of the District’s infrastructure SIP revision in addressing the implementation of the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 110(a)(2). 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

To satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A), the states shall identify existing SIP provisions approved by 

EPA or new provisions that the states have adopted and submitted for EPA approval that limit 

emissions of pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS, including precursors of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutant, where applicable. EPA has determined that the District has adopted 

regulations applicable to the implementation of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that include 

enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. For 

the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the District controls direct emission of the PM2.5 as well as other 

pollutants as precursors for secondary formation of PM2.5, including nitrogen oxides (NOX),

 

18 On August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676, at 52741). EPA disapproved a number of states SIPs for PSD purposes, 

including the District of Columbia, and incorporated by reference portions of the Federal PSD provisions in 40 CFR 

52.21 into the implementation plans for those states. This FIP was subsequently amended to reflect amendments to 

the Federal PSD rule, on March 10, 2003 (68 FR 11316, at 11322) and December 24, 2003 (68 FR 74483, at 74488). 

The PSD FIP, incorporated by reference in the District SIP in 40 CFR 52.499, specifically contains the provisions of 

40 CFR 52.21, with the exception of paragraph (a)(1). 
10

volatile organic compounds (VOC), and SO2. Table 1 lists all enforceable control measures that 

are contained in the District’s adopted regulations and approved into the District SIP, as codified 

in 40 CFR 52.470(c) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA acknowledges that emissions 

limitations and other control measures needed to attain the NAAQS in areas designated 

nonattainment for that NAAQS (under part D of title I of the CAA) are due on a different 

schedule from the section 110 infrastructure elements and thus EPA will review and act upon 

any such submissions for nonattainment areas within the District separately as necessary. 

Table 1. Control Measures in the District SIP for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

District Regulation Control Measure Affected 

Pollutant

State 

Effective 

Date

EPA’s 

Approval 

Date

20 DCMR section 600 Fuel-Burning PM2.5 4/16/2004 12/28/2004

(69 FR 77645)

20 DCMR section 602 Incinerators PM2.5 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 

(60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 603 Particulate Process 

Emissions PM2.5 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 (60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 604 Seasonal Open Burning 

Restrictions PM2.5 2/1/1985 8/28/1995 (60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 605 Control of Fugitive Dust PM2.5 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 

(60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 606 Visible Emissions 

(Opacity) PM2.5 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 (60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 700 Miscellaneous VOC VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 

(78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR sections 701.1 

to 701.13

Storage of Petroleum 

Products VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 (64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 702

Control of VOC Leaks 

from Petroleum Refinery 

Equipment

VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR sections 703.2

and 703.3

Terminal Vapor 

Recovery – Gasoline or 

VOC

VOC 9/30/1993 10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 704 Stage I Vapor Recovery VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 705 Stage II Vapor Recovery VOC 3/15/1985 

9/30/1993

10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 706 Petroleum Dry Cleaners VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 709 Asphalt Operations VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 710 Graphic Arts Controls VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 

(78 FR 24992)
11

20 DCMR section 711 Pumps and Compressors VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 712 Waste Gas Disposal 

from Ethylene Producing 

Plants 

VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 

(64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 713 

Waste Gas Disposal 

from Vapor Blow-Down 

Systems VOC 3/15/1985 10/27/1999 (64 FR 57777)

20 DCMR section 714

VOC RACT based on 

Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG)

VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 

(78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR section 715 Non-CTG VOC RACT VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 

(78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR section 716 Graphic Arts Controls VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 

(78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR section 718

Surface Cleaning/ 

Degreasing for 

Machinery/ Automobile 

Repair

VOC 11/26/2004 12/23/2005 

(69 FR 76855)

20 DCMR sections 719 to 

737

Reformulated Consumer 

Products Rule, Phase I VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 (78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR sections 743 to 

749

Industrial Adhesives and 

Sealants Rule VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 (78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR sections 751 to 

758

Portable Fuel Containers 

Rule, Phase I VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 (78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR sections 763 to 

769

Solvent Cleaning 

Operations Rule VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 (78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR sections 770 

and 771

Reformulated Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 (78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR sections 773 to 

778

Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance 

Coatings Rule

VOC 12/30/2011 4/29/2013 

(78 FR 24992)

20 DCMR section 80119 Sulfur Content of Fuel 

Oil 1

SO2 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 

(60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 802 Sulfur Content of Coal SO2 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 

(60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 803 Sulfur Process 

Emissions SO2 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 (60 FR 44431)

20 DCMR section 804

Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions from Steam 

Generating Units

NOX 3/15/1985 8/28/1995 

(60 FR 44431)

 

19

 The District submitted amendments to this rule as a revision to the SIP on January 27, 2016.
12

20 DCMR section 805 NOx RACT NOX 4/16/2004 12/28/2004 

(69 FR 77645)

20 DCMR section 915 National Low Emissions 

Vehicle Program 

NOX, 

VOC 2/11/2000 7/20/2000 (65 FR 44981)

20 DCMR chapter 10 NOX SIP Call

Requirements NOX 12/8/2000 12/22/2000 (65 FR 80783)

Regional Haze Plan, 

codified in 40 CFR 52.470

Includes source-specific 

requirements for PEPCO 

Benning

NOX, SO2 10/27/2010 2/2/2012 

(77 FR 5191)

18 DCMR sections 4, 6, 7, 

11, 26, and 99 (portions)

High-Tech (Enhanced) 

Inspections and 

Maintenance 

PM2.5,

VOC (various)

4/10/1986 

(51 FR 12322); 

6/11/1999 

(64 FR 31498)

EPA is not approving or disapproving any existing provisions in the District SIP with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. 

EPA also does not intend to reapprove any existing District SIP provisions which may address 

excess emissions during SSM by this infrastructure SIP rulemaking. EPA believes that a number 

of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance. On 

June 12, 2015, EPA issued a finding that certain SIP provisions in 36 states (applicable in 45 

statewide and local jurisdictions) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and 

thus issued a “SIP call” for each of those 36 states. 80 FR 33840. See also 78 FR 12460 

(February 22, 2013) (proposed finding for SIP call). The District was among the 36 states for the 

SIP call. EPA established a due date for states subject to the SIP call to submit corrective SIP 

revisions. The June 12, 2015 final action also embodied EPA’s updated SSM policy (2015 SSM 

Policy) as it applies to SIP provisions.20 The 2015 SSM Policy provides guidance to states for 

compliance with CAA requirements for SIP provisions applicable to excess emissions during 

SSM events. Thus EPA is addressing such state regulations in a separate rulemaking and not 

during review of infrastructure SIP submittals. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Also in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing District rules

(nor reapprove any such rules already in the District SIP) with regard to director’s discretion or 

variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states including the District have such 

provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, and EPA is addressing 

such regulations in separate rulemaking action via its June 12, 2015 SIP Call. See 80 FR 33840. 

In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having director’s discretion or variance provisions 

which are contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon 

as possible. 

 

20

 Previous EPA guidance on SSM in SIPs was in the August 11, 1999 Steven Herman and Robert Perciasepe 

Guidance Memorandum, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown.”
13

Based upon EPA’s review of the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

finds that the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)

To satisfy section 110(a)(2)(B), states need to have statutory or regulatory provisions that 

provide the authority and responsibility to perform air quality monitoring activities in accordance 

with EPA’s requirements. EPA concurs with the District’s statement that it has the authority to 

conduct ambient air quality monitoring under the District of Columbia Air Pollution Control Act 

of 1984 (APCA) (D.C. Official Code section 8-101.05(b)(1)(A)). The District’s authority under 

the APCA is then delegated to DDOEE under the District Department of the Environment 

Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07) and Mayor’s Order 2006-61 

(June 14, 2006). The District’s most relevant existing SIP provisions regarding air quality 

monitoring activities are found in 20 DCMR section 400. As required by these provisions, 

public reporting of air pollution levels are based on the results of air quality monitoring.

DDOEE monitors air quality for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at appropriate locations, in 

accordance with EPA’s ambient air quality monitoring network requirements. See EPA’s 

Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC) website, 40 CFR part 53, 40 

CFR part 58, and 40 CFR 51.190. DDOEE is responsible for operating and maintaining the 

District’s air quality monitoring stations and sends collected air samples to EPA approved 

laboratories for analysis. DDOEE performs quality-assurance checks and submits the data to 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) quarterly, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, EPA 

finds that the District has established and currently operates appropriate devices, methods, 

systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, 

and upon request, makes such data available to EPA. 

The District provides information to EPA regarding air quality monitoring activities, including a 

description of its compliance with EPA’s monitoring requirements and an explanation of any 

proposed changes to the air monitoring network. DDOEE submits annually to EPA an air 

quality monitoring network plan and a periodic network assessment every five years, consistent 

with 40 CFR 58.10. In each annual network plan, DDOEE provides notification to EPA of any 

proposed changes to the monitoring network or the measurement methods, consistent with the 

applicable requirements in 40 CFR 58.14. EPA Region III’s Regional Administrator sends a 

letter annually to the District indicating whether the network plan and any proposed changes to 

the network, as substantiated in the plan, meet all applicable monitoring requirements. The 

District’s 2015 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan submitted on June 19, 2015 was 

approved by EPA in a November 12, 2015 letter to DDOEE. EPA’s approval of the District’s 

2015 monitoring network plan confirms that the District’s air monitoring program continues to 

meet federally established monitoring and data assessment criteria for the respective pollutant. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

finds that the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 
14

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)

This infrastructure element consists of three subelements: Enforcement; state-wide regulations 

of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of majors sources; and 

preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications within areas designated 

attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS.

The District provisions that provide for enforcement of the emission limits and control measures 

previously identified to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) include the monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements found in certain sections of 20 DCMR Chapters 1 and 5, all of which 

have been approved into the District SIP. 

Consistent with 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164, the District’s minor preconstruction permitting 

program is codified in Title 20 DCMR chapter 2 and approved into the District SIP. The 

District’s minor permitting program applies to all regulated pollutants under the CAA, including 

PM2.5, NOX, VOC, and SO2, regardless of nonattainment status. This satisfies the subelement for 

preconstruction of the construction and modification of minor stationary sources and the minor 

modification of major stationary sources.

As explained earlier, EPA has determined that the portions of the District’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal addressing the subelement of section 110(a)(2)(C) related to the PSD permitting 

requirements under part C of Title I of the CAA are technically incomplete. As a result, EPA is 

not taking rulemaking action on the PSD-related portions of the submittals for section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA does not anticipate any adverse 

consequences to the District, as the Federal PSD rules fully address this requirement through 

EPA’s FIP which covers the District.

With respect to 110(a)(2)(C) and a PSD permit program, EPA interprets the CAA to require each 

state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates 

that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Because the District is subject to EPA’s FIP for PSD which 

implements 40 CFR 52.21, the PSD program currently in place through the FIP covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including GHGs as appropriate. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application 

of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not 

treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to require that 

PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court’s decision pending 

further judicial action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations 

that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state’s SIP-approved 

PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that 

the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which 
15

there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a 

modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD 

rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. The 

timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD 

program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting 

states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state’s program correctly addresses GHGs 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

At present, because the District is subject to the PSD FIP, the Federal PSD program within the 

District continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of 

BACT. Although the PSD FIP implementing the federal provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 may 

currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, 

the FIP will automatically update when or if EPA updates these provisions.

Meanwhile, the PSD FIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the 

application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved 

provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at 

this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does 

not affect the determination that the PSD FIP for the District addresses the deficiency in the 

District’s SIP as required under section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of title I of the CAA. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

finds that the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, with the exception of the portions related to PSD for which the District is subject to a 

FIP. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)

1. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly 

to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. EPA 

sometimes refers to these requirements as “good neighbor” provisions or prong 1 (significant 

contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). The District’s 

December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS includes a 

component to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relating to interstate transport.

EPA’s memorandum regarding the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the “good neighbor” provisions 

indicates that there are a few areas in the continental US where transported emissions might 

potentially impact attainment and/or maintenance of the NAAQS. These areas are primarily in 

California along with an area in Idaho, and one location in southwestern Pennsylvania. The 

District is located approximately 200 miles from the closest out of state location (Allegheny 
16

County PA) that may have issues with maintenance of the NAAQS. The PA location is 

northwest of the District. Generally, the predominant wind direction would be from east to west 

in and around the District which is not in the direction of the PA location. Air quality data 

indicates that ambient concentrations of both annual and daily PM2.5 have declined significantly 

in the District and annual design values have been at or below the 2012 standard since 2010. 

The District no longer has large sources of PM2.5 such as electric generating units and anticipates 

additional reductions in precursor emissions as its new regulation reducing SO2 in fuels is 

implemented. The information in the District’s submittal regarding air quality trends inside the 

District as well as information about emissions of direct PM2.5 and precursors discussed herein 

provide a strong weight of evidence argument that emissions from this very small geographic 

area (i.e., the District) are not interfering with attainment or maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in any areas outside of the District. In addition, EPA has approved a maintenance plan 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQs for this area. The notice which proposed approval of this 

maintenance plan includes a table (Table 6) of direct PM2.5 and precursor emissions projected in 

2017 and 2025 which indicates that emissions of direct PM2.5 and precursors will continue to 

decline over the next several years. See 79 FR 45735 (August 6, 2014). 

Based upon EPA’s review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal in conjunction 

with the EPA “good neighbor” memo on the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and information in EPA’s 

approval of a 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, EPA finds that the District has met its 

obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and finds that emission within the District do not 

contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in 

another state. 

2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)

The infrastructure element in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with 

measures required of any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or from 

interfering with measures required of any other state to protect visibility in Class I areas. EPA 

sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 3 (interference with PSD) and prong 4 

(interference with visibility protection). 

Prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires states SIPs to have provisions prohibiting 

emissions that would interfere with measures required to be in any other state SIP under part C 

of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Because part C of title I of the 

CAA requires a state’s PSD program to address all pollutants subject to regulation under the 

CAA, EPA interprets prong 3 to mean that infrastructure SIP submissions should provide SIP 

provisions containing a comprehensive PSD permitting program. As explained earlier, EPA has 

determined that the portions of the District’s infrastructure SIP submittals for addressing the 

subelement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to the PSD permitting requirements under part 

C of title I of the CAA are technically incomplete. As a result, EPA is not taking rulemaking 

action on the PSD-related portions of the submittal for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA does not anticipate any adverse consequences to the District from 
17

this lack of full approval, as the Federal PSD rules fully address this requirement through EPA’s 

FIP for the District.

Prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting air pollutants in amounts 

which will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other state under part C of title I of the CAA to protect visibility. EPA interprets prong 4 

to be pollutant-specific, such that an infrastructure SIP submission need only address potential 

interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant, including precursors, to which 

the subject NAAQS applies. Further, EPA interprets prong 4 to be satisfied for any relevant 

NAAQS by confirmation that the states has an approved Regional Haze SIP that fully satisfies 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309.21 As indicated in the infrastructure submittal, the 

District’s Regional Haze Program to address visibility impairment requirements in Class I areas 

was fully approved into the District SIP by EPA. See 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012). The 

District’s Regional Haze SIP is consistent with EPA’s requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, addressed any contribution to visibility impairment related to emissions of PM2.5 and its

precursors, and included measures to address emissions that would interfere with reasonable 

progress goals of neighboring states set to protect Class I areas. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA finds that 

the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection for the 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

3. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) is satisfied when an infrastructure SIP ensures compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126(a), 126(b), 126(c), and 115 of the CAA. 

Under section 126(a)(1) of the CAA, each SIP must contain provisions requiring each new or 

modified major source, that is either (a) subject to PSD under CAA title I part C, or (b) that may 

significantly contribute to levels of pollution in excess of a NAAQS in any other region outside 

of the state in which the source is located, to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from 

the source.22 Because the District lacks a SIP-approved PSD program, EPA has determined that 

the portions of the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure submittal addressing the 

subelement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to the PSD permitting requirements are technically 

incomplete. Thus, EPA is not taking rulemaking action on the PSD-related portion of the 

submittal for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA concurs with the assertions in the infrastructure SIP submission that the District has no 

pending obligations at this time for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to CAA sections 

 

21 Because of the impacts on visibility from the interstate transport of pollutants, EPA has interpreted this provision 

of CAA section 110 as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere 

with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. See 76 FR 52388 (August 22, 2011) 

(disapproval of a portion of New Mexico SIP related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and promulgation of FIP to address 

deficiency) and 76 FR 491 (January 5, 2011) (proposed action on same). 

22 EPA notes that the requirement in CAA section 126(a)(2) was a one-time obligation on states that does not apply 

to EPA’s review of infrastructure SIP submissions.
18

126(b) and (c). EPA also concurs with the District’s statements in the infrastructure SIP 

submittal that there are no findings under CAA section 115 against the District with respect to 

the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also finds that the District’s SIP has adequate provisions 

insuring future compliance with the requirements of sections 126(b), 126 (c), and 115 of the 

CAA, as may be necessary. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA finds that 

the District’s SIP submittal meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, with exception of the PSD-related portion for which the District’s SIP 

submission is incomplete.

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)

1. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

For section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), the infrastructure SIP submission should provide necessary 

assurances that the state has adequate personnel and funding to implement the relevant NAAQS. 

As indicated in the SIP submissions, DDOEE is responsible for carrying out any SIP obligations 

for implementation of the NAAQS, including the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In accordance 

with 40 CFR part 51, subpart M, the District has identified the Metropolitan Washington Air 

Quality Committee (MWAQC) and the Interstate Air Quality Council (IAQC) as participating 

organizations in planning and developing SIP provisions for the District. As indicated, a copy of 

the inter-organizational agreements between MWAQC and DDOEE were approved into the 

District’s SIP in the approved infrastructure SIP revision for the 2008 lead standard. See 78 FR 

62455 (October 22, 2013). 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, subpart L, the District has adequate authority to carry out its 

SIP obligations under state law pursuant to the District APCA (D.C. Official Code section 8-

101.05(b)(1)(C)) and its delegation of authority to DDOEE under the District Department 

Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07).

At present, the District states it fulfills its SIP obligations by virtue of having adequate personnel 

and funding. The District has the authority to receive and administer grants or donations for its 

air pollution control program, pursuant to the District APCA (D.C. Official Code section 8-

101.05(c)(3)). Funding resources are acquired through the CAA sections 103 and 105 grant 

processes (federal grant funds), the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), and the 

District Department of Motor Vehicle motor vehicle inspection fees. These funding resources 

were available as of the date of the infrastructure SIP submission and are expected to be adequate 

for five years following the submissions. DDOEE anticipates both adequate personnel and 

funding to meet any changes in the implementation of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Based upon EPA’s review of the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

finds that the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(E)(i) for the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

2. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
19

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires SIPs to include approved provisions that comply with 

requirements of CAA section 128 with respect state boards. The District is in compliance with 

the applicable requirements of section 128 through its conflict of interest provisions in the D.C. 

Official Code section 1-1161.01, 1-1162.23, 1162.24 and 1162.25, which have been approved 

into the District SIP. See 78 FR 62455 (October 22, 2013). EPA notes that the District does not 

have a “board or body” to approve permits or enforcement orders, therefore the requirements 

under paragraph (a)(1) of CAA Section 128 are not applicable. EPA finds that the District has 

met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires the infrastructure SIP to provide necessary assurances that, 

when the state relies on any local or regional government for implementation of the SIP, it has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP. As indicated in the 

infrastructure SIP submission, the District does not rely on localities for implementation of the 

SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA finds that the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii) are not applicable to the District. EPA finds the District’s December 28, 2015 

infrastructure SIP submittal meets obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) for the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)

1. Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii)

To satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (ii), states need to provide statutory or regulatory 

provisions to perform stationary source monitoring and emissions reporting in accordance with 

EPA’s regulations. Specifically, EPA’s source monitoring requirements are contained in 40 CFR 

52.212 and EPA’s requirements for periodic reporting of emissions requirements are provided in 

40 CFR 51.211, 40 CFR 51.321 through 51.323, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. EPA notes that 

in practice, the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 51.321 have been superseded by 40 CFR 

51.45(b) for electronic submission of emissions reports.

EPA concurs with the District’s statement in the infrastructure SIP submittal that it has the 

adequate authority to conduct stationary source monitoring and to require periodic reporting 

under the District APCA (D.C. Official Code sections 8-101.05(b)(1)(A)). This authority is 

delegated to DDOEE under the District Department of the Environment Establishment Act of 

2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07) and Mayor’s Order 2006-61 (June 14, 2006). In 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.212, the District’s source monitoring requirements, including 

periodic testing and inspection requirements, are found throughout the District’s SIP approved 

provisions of 20 DCMR chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, section 307, and chapter 5, section 502. 

These regulations are included and codified in the District SIP in 40 CFR 52.470(c) and are 

applicable to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Consistent with EPA’s source emissions reporting 

requirements, the District’s SIP approved provisions of 20 DCMR chapter 2 require sources to 

submit to DDOEE emissions and emissions-related data on an annual basis. 
20

The District complies with 40 CFR 51.45(b) by submitting emissions inventory data to EPA’s 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) System. The District provides in the infrastructure 

submittal the necessary assurance that it will make any necessary changes to emissions inventory 

reporting relevant to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as required.

2. Section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii)

Section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) is satisfied by the states having provisions in place that provide for 

correlation of source emission reports with applicable emission limitations or standards and 

provide public availability of such reports. The District has the authority to review emissions 

reports submitted by stationary sources under the District APCA (D.C. Official Code section 

8-101.05(b)(1)(A)). This authority is delegated to DDOEE under the District Department of the 

Environment Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07) and Mayor’s 

Order 2006-61 (June 14, 2006). 

DDOEE air quality inspectors correlate the emissions data with any applicable emissions 

limitations or standards. Data reported would reflect the applicable test methods and averaging 

periods used consistent with the applicable emissions limitations and standards, as required by 

permits. The District’s source emissions reports are available for public inspection through the 

District’s normal administrative procedures, such as described under the District’s Freedom of 

Information Act (D.C. FOIA) (D.C. Official Code section 2-532 et seq. (2013 Repl.)).

Based upon EPA’s review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA finds that 

the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(F)(i), (ii) and (iii) for the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G) and the District’s Air Quality Emergency Plan

Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide authority comparable to that of the EPA 

Administrator under section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such 

authority. Specifically, CAA section 303 provides authority to the EPA Administrator to seek a 

court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions that present an 

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. 

The District has the authority to implement SIP-approved provisions under the District APCA 

(D.C. Official Code section 8-101.05(c)(4), which is delegated to DDOEE through the District 

Department of the Environment Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code 8-151.07). The 

District has authority comparable to EPA’s imminent and substantial endangerment authority in 

CAA section 303 under the SIP-approved provisions in 20 DCMR chapter 4, section 401. 

EPA’s requirements for contingency plans to implement the state’s emergency episode authority 

are found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153). Subpart H includes 

criteria for classification of areas into priority regions, based on ambient air concentrations of the 

particular pollutant being addressed. Specifically, if an area is classified as a Priority I region for 

a specified pollutant, the state would need to provide a contingency plan (with respect to that 

pollutant) that would need to include provisions that trigger actions to prevent air quality 
21

concentrations from reaching a “significant harm level” (SHL), which represents an imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public health. The currently applicable priority classification 

for regions in each state are incorporated into the SIPs. Contingency plan requirements are 

specified in 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152, and an example of a plan is provided in appendix L to 

50 CFR part 51. 

As specified in 40 CFR 52.471, the entire District is part of the National Capital Interstate Air 

Quality Control Region, which is classified as a Priority I region for PM, sulfur oxides (SOX),

carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone. On April 13, 2015, EPA approved as a SIP revision the 

District’s Air Quality Emergency Episode Plan addressing the current requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart H for all applicable pollutants. 80 FR 19538. This plan provides the public 

adequate communication regarding air quality data forecasts and health effects of air pollution 

regarding the applicable pollutants, including PM. 

While EPA’s subpart H regulations provide specific ambient levels for contingency plan 

purposes for most applicable pollutants, the regulations currently do not specifically address 

PM2.5 as a subset of PM. EPA has recommended through guidance specific ambient levels for 

contingency purposes for the 1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, including a SHL. 23 EPA 

also recognizes that a specific SHL or other contingency levels have not yet been established for 

the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). In the absence of a SHL, 

EPA continues to believe that the central components of a contingency plan would be to reduce 

emissions from the PM2.5 source(s) at issue and public communication as needed

EPA recommended to states in previous guidance to develop PM2.5 emergency episode plans for 

any area that had monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140 μg/m3 from 2006 

(i.e., “Priority I Level”) to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If this level was never exceeded in any area of the state, EPA 

recommended the state to certify that it has appropriate general emergency powers to address 

PM2.5 related episodes, and that no specific emergency episode plans are necessary at this time, 

given the existing monitored level. 

The District asserts in its December 28, 2015 infrastructure submittal that no specific 

contingency provisions are needed for the PM2.5 NAAQS, based on its evaluation of air quality 

monitoring data for PM2.5. The District also certifies that its general emergency powers under 20 

DCMR chapter 4, section 401 are adequate to address any potential PM2.5 related episodes as 

necessary.

EPA reviewed historical 24-hour PM2.5 monitoring data for the District since 2006. See AQS 

report (AMP440) dated June 6, 2016 attached. EPA finds that 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

have been well below 140 μg/m3between 2006 and 2015. Given this fact, and because the 

District has demonstrated that it has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM2.5 

 

23 See a memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, to Regional Air

Division Directors, Regions I through X, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for

the 2006 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” (September 25, 2009). In this 

guidance document, EPA recommended SHLs, priority levels, and action levels for both the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 
22

related episodes and PM2.5 sources, EPA finds that no specific or additional emergency episode 

plans are necessary at this time to meet the applicable requirements for PM2.5. Further, EPA 

finds that the District’s existing contingency plan continues to adequately meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51 subpart H for all applicable pollutants. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal and a review of 

the monitoring data, EPA finds that the District has met its all pending obligations pursuant to 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)

Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of the plan from time to time as may 

be necessary to take account of revisions of the NAAQS or the availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining the standards and to revise the plan whenever EPA finds that 

the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any 

additional requirements under the CAA. 

Through its infrastructure SIP submittal, the District has demonstrated that it has adequate 

authority to revise its SIP as necessary under the District APCA (D.C. Official Code sections 8-

101.05(b)(1)(D) and 8-101.06), which is delegated to DDOEE under the District Department of 

the Environment Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07) and Mayor’s 

Order 2006-61 (June 14, 2006). As necessary, the District submits revisions to its SIP for EPA 

approval to account for revisions of primary and/or secondary NAAQS or to adopt improved or 

more expeditious control methods for attainment of such standards, or in the event that EPA 

finds the SIP to be substantially inadequate to either attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply 

with any additional requirements.

Based upon EPA’s review of the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

finds that the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)

The District’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not include or 

address CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). As indicated earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP 

submissions to address this element, because nonattainment area plans required under part D of 

title I of the CAA are required on a different schedule from section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements of the CAA and thus, will be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)

Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of CAA section 121 and 

127, as well as part C of title I of the CAA. EPA interprets this infrastructure element to contain 

four separable subelements: consultation with identified officials on certain air agency actions as 

listed under CAA section 121; public notification; prevention of significant deterioration, and 

visibility protection.
23

1. Subelement: Consultation (CAA Section 121)

Consistent with the consultation requirements of CAA section 121, the District assures that it has 

an established consultation process for consultation with general-purpose local governments, 

designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and Federal land managers as 

appropriate. The consultation process takes place through MWAQC according to a set of bylaws 

that are reviewed and adopted annually, as previously discussed for section 110(a)(2)(E). The 

District has the authority for such consultation processes under the District APCA (D.C. Official 

Code section 8-101.05(b)(1)(c)), which is delegated to DDOEE through the District Department 

of the Environment Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07) and the 

Mayor’s Order 2006-61 (June 14, 2006). 

The District’s interagency and public consultation provisions specifically associated with the 

transportation conformity process, are included in 20 DCMR chapter 15, sections 1506 and 1507. 

Additionally, consultation with Federal land managers takes place separately as required by 

CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308, as specified in the District’s SIP approved Regional 

Haze SIP. See 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012).

2. Subelement: Public Notification (CAA Section 127)

To satisfy this subelement, the District must ensure that DDOEE regularly notifies the public of 

instances or areas in which the new or revised NAAQS are exceeded; advises the public of the 

health hazards associated with such exceedances; and enhances public awareness of measures 

that can prevent such exceedances and of ways the public can participate. 

The District assures that the general public is regularly notified of and educated about NAAQS 

exceedances. In accordance with title 20 DCMR chapter 4, section 400 and 40 CFR 51.285, the 

District is required, in coordination with MWCOG, to ensure air pollution levels are reported to 

the public. Additionally, the District relies on Clean Air Partners, a nongovermental 

organization that works with businesses, organizations, and individuals to raise awareness and 

reduce air pollution through voluntary activities.24 Clean Air Partners provides air quality 

forecasts and related information to the public. 

3. Subelement: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (CAA Title I, Part C)

Approvability of this subelement is intrinsically related to approvability of the state’s PSD 

program, in accordance with part C of title I of the CAA. As explained earlier, EPA has 

determined that the portions of the District’s infrastructure SIP submittals for addressing the 

subelement in section 110(a)(2)(J) related to the PSD permitting requirements under part C of 

title I of the CAA are technically incomplete. As a result, EPA is not taking rulemaking action 

on the PSD-related portions of the submittals for section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA does not anticipate any adverse consequences to the District from this lack of full 

approval, as the Federal PSD rules fully address this requirement through EPA’s FIP for the 

District.

 

24 Clean Air Partners is a nonprofit (501 c-3) partnership chartered by the MWCOG and the Baltimore Metropolitan 

Council.
24

4. Subelement: Visibility Protection

With regard to visibility protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements under part C of title I of the CAA (sections 169A and 

169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there are no new 

applicable visibility protection obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS is 

effective, and accordingly there are no applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA approved the District’s Regional Haze SIP revision on February 2, 2012 

(77 FR 5191). Therefore, EPA previously found the District’s SIP addressed visibility protection 

and regional haze program requirements under part C of title I of the CAA. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the District’s December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

finds that the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD-related requirements for which we previously found the 

District’s infrastructure SIP submittal incomplete. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)

To satisfy section 110(a)(2)(K), states need to provide the authority and responsibility to perform 

air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air 

pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and to provide such modeling results to 

EPA upon request. The infrastructure SIP submission provides that the District has the authority 

to conduct air quality modeling in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality from relevant 

pollutant emissions under the District APCA (in D.C. Official Code sections 8-101.05(b)(1)(A)), 

8-101.05(c)(3) and 8-101.05(c)(4)), which is delegated to DDOEE under the District Department 

of the Environment Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07) and the 

Mayor’s Order 2006-61 (June 14, 2006). The District committed to continue submitting to EPA 

the air quality modeling data as part of permitting and NAAQS implementation, as outlined in 20 

DCMR chapter 3, section 303.

Based upon EPA’s review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA finds that 

the District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require the owner or operator of each major stationary 

source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required by the CAA, a fee 

sufficient to cover: (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for 

such a permit; and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable 

costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit, until such fee 

requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by EPA's approval of a fee program 

under title V of the CAA.
25

In its infrastructure SIP submittal, the District satisfies section 110(a)(2)(L) by explaining that its 

approved title V permitting program provides for collection of adequate permitting fees, 

consistent with 40 CFR 70.9 and 40 CFR part 70, appendix A. EPA approved the District’s title 

V program on August 7, 1996 (60 FR 40101) and its subsequent amendments on April 16, 2003 

(68 FR 18548). The District’s title V program permitting fees provisions are found in 20 DCMR 

chapter 3, sections 305 and 307.25 The District’s title V program fees are used to fund permitting 

(including reviewing and acting upon permit applications) and implementation and enforcement 

of permit terms for new and existing major stationary sources of air pollution. 

Based upon EPA’s review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA finds the 

District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)

To satisfy the infrastructure element in CAA section 110(a)(2)(M), the SIP should provide for 

consultation with affected local political subdivisions. According to the submittal the District 

has the authority for consultation with local entities under the District APCA (in D.C. Official 

Code section 8-101.05(b)(1)(C)), which is delegated to DDOEE under the District Department of 

the Environment Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official Code section 8-151.07) and the 

Mayor’s Order 2006-61 (June 14, 2006). The District’s consultation process takes place through 

MWAQC according to a set of bylaws that are reviewed and adopted annually. Additionally, the 

District’s interagency and public consultation provisions specifically associated with the 

transportation conformity process are included in 20 DCMR chapter 15, sections 1506 and 1507. 

Finally, as specified under the District Administrative Procedure Act (D.C. Official Code section 

2-505) and the District Department of Environment Establishment Act of 2005 (D.C. Official 

Code section 8-151.07(3)), each SIP undergoes a public notice and hearing process before its 

submission to EPA. According to the infrastructure SIP submission, leaders of political 

subdivisions may participate in this public process.

Based on our review of the December 28, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA finds that the 

District has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

EPA finds that the District’s infrastructure SIP submittal dated December 28, 2015 for the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), 

(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA for the applicable 

NAAQS, with the exception of the specific PSD related requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D) and (J). The District’s infrastructure submittal for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not 

address section 110(a)(2)(I) pertaining to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the 

CAA because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of 

CAA section 110(a)(1) and will be addressed in a separate process where necessary. 

 

25 EPA notes that states title V programs are not required to be approved into the SIP. For that reason, the District’s 

title V permitting fees provisions are not approved into the SIP, however the program in its entirety has been 

approved by EPA.
26

EPA is not taking rulemaking action on the portions of the submittal addressing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) with respect to the PSD permitting requirements of part 

C of title I of the CAA, because EPA has deemed these portions incomplete regarding the PSD 

elements due to the EPA FIP for PSD permitting requirements for the District. Thus, it is 

recommended that a notice of proposed rulemaking be prepared approving the relevant portions 

of the District’s December 28, 2015 SIP revision submittal for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Report Request ID: 1452034 Report Code: AMP440 Jun. 6, 2016

Selection Criteria Page 1

User ID: HXN

State County City Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA

EPA

Region

11

GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS

Parameter

Classification Parameter Method Duration

CRITERIA 88101

SELECTED OPTIONS

MERGE PDF FILES

EVENTS PROCESSING

AGENCY ROLE

Option Type Option Value

YES

REPORT ALL EVENT RECORDS

PQAO

SORT ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Order Column

PARAMETER_CODE

STATE_CODE

DURATION_CODE

DATES

COUNTY_CODE

SITE_ID

POC

EDT_ID

DATE CRITERIA

2006

Start Date End Date

2015

Tribal

Code

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Standard Description

PM25 Annual 2013
EXCEPTIONAL DATA TYPES

EDT DESCRIPTION

0

1

2

5

NO EVENTS

EVENTS EXCLUDED

EVENTS INCLUDED

EVENTS WITH CONCURRENCE EXCLUDED
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 2 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2011

2012

1 HOUR

1 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

7353

8398

8400

0

1

2

4

4

4

54.0

71.0

126.0

07/20:13

06/21:20

07/04:20

170

170

170

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

53.0

54.0

106.0

07/04:20

01/23:12

07/04:21

50.0

54.0

71.0

06/11:09

06/21:16

06/21:20

50.0

54.0

54.0

07/21:04

12/01:21

01/23:12

48.0

53.0

54.0

03/27:22

01/23:11

06/21:16

48.0

52.0

54.0

07/04:22

12/02:02

12/01:21

48.0

51.0

53.0

07/20:12

06/02:22

01/23:11

47.0

51.0

52.0

07/21:03

12/02:01

12/02:02

45.0

49.0

51.0

08/13:19

07/08:15

06/02:22

44.0

49.0

51.0

07/20:15

12/02:00

12/02:01

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 3 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2012

2013

2014

1 HOUR

1 HOUR

1 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

8400

8427

8595

5

0

1

4

4

4

126.0

99.0

66.0

07/04:20

07/04:20

07/04:22

170

170

170

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

106.0

83.0

42.0

07/04:21

07/04:21

12/21:20

71.0

54.0

40.0

06/21:20

07/04:22

06/17:21

54.0

44.0

39.0

01/23:12

01/26:22

01/05:17

54.0

44.0

38.0

06/21:16

12/18:04

01/05:16

54.0

40.0

38.0

12/01:21

01/26:23

02/01:07

53.0

39.0

38.0

01/23:11

12/03:09

02/09:21

52.0

39.0

38.0

12/02:02

12/04:09

03/02:18

51.0

38.0

37.0

06/02:22

01/12:16

02/09:20

51.0

38.0

37.0

12/02:01

11/15:07

03/02:19

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 4 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2014

2015

2015

1 HOUR

1 HOUR

1 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

8597

8597

8646

2

5

0

4

4

4

129.0

129.0

117.0

07/04:20

07/04:20

07/04:21

170

170

170

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

111.0

111.0

103.0

07/04:21

07/04:21

07/04:22

66.0

66.0

75.0

07/04:22

07/04:22

07/04:23

42.0

42.0

75.0

12/21:20

12/21:20

09/03:09

40.0

40.0

74.0

06/17:21

06/17:21

06/29:18

39.0

39.0

51.0

01/05:17

01/05:17

07/04:20

38.0

38.0

45.0

01/05:16

01/05:16

12/06:08

38.0

38.0

43.0

02/01:07

02/01:07

07/05:00

38.0

38.0

42.0

02/09:21

02/09:21

09/02:14

38.0

38.0

40.0

03/02:18

03/02:18

12/12:04

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 5 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2015

2006

1 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0051

11-001-0041

11-001-0041

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

5115

351

352

0

1

2

1

1

1

239.0

45.0

74.1

07/04:21

08/02:00

07/04:00

170

120

120

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

116.0

39.6

45.0

07/04:20

08/01:00

08/02:00

77.0

37.6

39.6

07/04:22

08/03:00

08/01:00

70.0

37.1

37.6

07/04:23

05/30:00

08/03:00

49.0

37.0

37.1

07/05:00

07/11:00

05/30:00

47.0

35.5

37.0

12/09:08

09/08:00

07/11:00

47.0

35.0

35.5

12/12:04

07/18:00

09/08:00

47.0

34.0

35.0

12/12:05

11/28:00

07/18:00

45.0

33.9

34.0

12/11:23

08/25:00

11/28:00

45.0

33.4

33.9

12/12:00

06/18:00

08/25:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 6 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2006

2006

2006

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0041

11-001-0041

11-001-0042

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

352

59

118

5

0

0

1

2

1

74.1

75.8

35.2

07/04:00

07/04:00

09/08:00

120

120

120

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

45.0

38.6

33.6

08/02:00

08/03:00

08/03:00

39.6

36.1

33.0

08/01:00

09/08:00

07/31:00

37.6

30.5

32.6

08/03:00

07/10:00

07/10:00

37.1

23.6

31.6

05/30:00

01/11:00

08/24:00

37.0

23.2

31.1

07/11:00

05/29:00

11/28:00

35.5

22.5

29.2

09/08:00

02/16:00

07/04:00

35.0

21.5

25.9

07/18:00

08/15:00

06/01:00

34.0

21.0

25.4

11/28:00

07/28:00

06/19:00

33.9

20.6

24.5

08/25:00

06/22:00

05/29:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 7 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2006

2007

2007

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0041

11-001-0041

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

352

334

57

0

0

0

1

1

2

41.1

45.6

42.1

08/01:00

08/07:00

08/04:00

120

120

120

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

40.8

45.4

29.2

07/04:00

06/19:00

10/09:00

38.3

42.7

27.4

07/11:00

08/04:00

12/08:00

35.3

38.6

26.9

09/08:00

06/18:00

08/16:00

34.6

34.9

26.0

05/30:00

07/09:00

07/04:00

34.2

34.3

24.1

06/18:00

12/09:00

11/20:00

33.6

32.8

23.9

08/25:00

08/05:00

07/29:00

33.2

32.5

22.5

08/03:00

08/06:00

12/26:00

32.8

31.9

22.1

11/28:00

06/26:00

06/17:00

31.9

31.6

22.0

09/09:00

08/08:00

07/17:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 8 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2007

2007

2008

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0042

11-001-0043

11-001-0041

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

117

338

353

0

0

0

1

1

1

41.2

45.6

45.2

08/04:00

06/19:00

07/04:00

120

120

120

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

30.6

45.5

34.9

05/27:00

08/07:00

06/06:00

28.7

40.8

33.8

07/08:00

08/04:00

06/07:00

28.5

37.3

32.3

10/09:00

06/18:00

07/29:00

27.4

35.3

31.4

06/26:00

12/09:00

07/16:00

26.8

34.3

31.1

12/08:00

12/20:00

07/17:00

26.5

33.1

29.4

08/13:00

08/06:00

07/18:00

25.7

32.4

29.2

12/26:00

07/09:00

07/28:00

25.5

31.7

28.8

08/16:00

08/05:00

06/14:00

24.7

31.4

27.5

06/08:00

06/26:00

08/05:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 9 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2008

2008

2008

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0041

11-001-0042

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

59

119

344

0

0

0

2

1

1

44.2

32.8

36.3

07/04:00

07/17:00

06/06:00

120

120

120

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

32.0

31.6

32.0

07/17:00

07/29:00

06/07:00

31.2

31.4

31.8

07/29:00

06/14:00

07/17:00

23.2

26.2

31.8

07/11:00

08/01:00

07/29:00

23.2

25.5

31.3

09/03:00

01/28:00

06/14:00

20.8

25.5

30.8

04/18:00

09/03:00

07/18:00

18.2

23.9

28.4

09/21:00

08/19:00

07/28:00

17.4

23.6

27.6

10/15:00

07/05:00

08/18:00

17.2

22.2

27.2

08/04:00

06/26:00

09/22:00

17.1

21.9

26.8

09/09:00

02/03:00

07/12:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 10 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2009

2009

2009

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0041

11-001-0041

11-001-0042

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

360

62

117

0

0

0

1

2

1

37.3

37.7

40.9

01/19:00

01/19:00

01/19:00

120

120

120

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

31.4

26.4

25.2

11/10:00

11/09:00

11/09:00

29.4

20.0

22.7

03/16:00

01/13:00

03/17:00

28.6

18.0

20.6

01/27:00

03/14:00

01/04:00

27.4

15.6

20.2

08/27:00

08/05:00

08/26:00

26.7

15.5

19.6

11/09:00

08/23:00

08/08:00

25.2

15.3

18.9

06/26:00

07/30:00

03/05:00

24.3

14.7

18.6

08/09:00

08/11:00

01/22:00

23.8

14.3

18.1

01/20:00

05/13:00

01/10:00

23.0

14.2

17.8

01/23:00

08/17:00

03/14:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 11 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2009

2010

2010

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0041

11-001-0041

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

349

339

59

0

0

0

1

1

2

36.6

62.2

37.1

01/19:00

07/04:00

07/07:00

120

120

120

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

31.7

36.8

25.8

03/16:00

07/07:00

01/14:00

29.2

35.9

20.1

11/10:00

07/06:00

08/30:00

28.4

35.1

19.3

01/27:00

07/05:00

09/23:00

27.7

31.6

18.4

08/27:00

08/11:00

08/12:00

24.8

28.8

18.2

11/09:00

12/18:00

08/06:00

24.0

28.3

17.4

06/26:00

02/03:00

02/01:00

23.8

28.1

17.2

03/17:00

12/11:00

11/16:00

23.5

27.4

17.0

08/09:00

08/10:00

07/31:00

22.6

26.5

16.8

01/20:00

02/02:00

03/21:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 12 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2010

2010

2011

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0042

11-001-0043

11-001-0041

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

116

336

340

0

0

0

1

1

1

35.1

34.1

34.0

07/07:00

07/07:00

07/04:00

120

118

120

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

120

25.2

33.0

28.1

12/19:00

07/06:00

06/01:00

23.2

31.1

27.8

08/21:00

07/05:00

07/21:00

22.5

30.3

26.8

08/09:00

08/11:00

05/31:00

21.5

28.3

26.8

06/22:00

12/18:00

06/09:00

20.9

26.8

25.0

01/14:00

08/10:00

06/08:00

20.5

26.2

24.7

09/02:00

12/11:00

02/01:00

20.2

25.1

24.5

01/17:00

02/02:00

07/24:00

19.6

24.5

24.3

08/30:00

06/26:00

07/22:00

19.1

24.4

24.1

06/16:00

01/16:00

01/30:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 13 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2011

2011

2011

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0041

11-001-0042

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

60

124

336

0

0

0

2

1

1

29.2

30.7

30.6

07/04:00

06/04:00

06/01:00

120

118

118

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

25.0

26.9

30.2

06/08:00

07/20:00

07/21:00

20.7

26.2

27.4

07/20:00

07/29:00

05/31:00

18.1

24.7

27.3

08/13:00

01/30:00

06/09:00

17.7

20.8

26.0

12/05:00

07/06:00

07/20:00

17.2

20.8

25.5

07/02:00

07/23:00

02/01:00

14.3

20.2

25.2

08/19:00

07/03:00

06/08:00

13.3

19.7

24.8

07/08:00

06/14:00

01/01:00

13.2

18.8

24.8

06/20:00

01/18:00

06/10:00

12.4

18.8

24.1

01/15:00

07/04:00

01/24:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 14 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2012

2012

2012

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0041

11-001-0042

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

331

112

360

0

0

0

1

1

1

35.5

31.2

34.1

11/27:00

12/02:00

12/01:00

118

118

118

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

33.8

27.7

31.9

08/05:00

11/23:00

12/02:00

31.6

24.3

28.4

07/04:00

06/23:00

01/23:00

30.8

22.5

26.1

11/16:00

03/16:00

06/21:00

29.0

20.2

24.3

11/28:00

11/26:00

07/08:00

27.9

19.1

24.0

06/21:00

07/20:00

03/16:00

27.8

19.1

23.8

01/23:00

12/17:00

08/07:00

26.3

18.9

23.6

03/22:00

08/22:00

06/20:00

25.0

17.8

22.6

07/08:00

11/11:00

07/07:00

24.3

17.6

22.6

06/20:00

01/25:00

08/08:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 15 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2012

2013

2013

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0041

11-001-0042

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

120

355

126

0

0

0

2

1

1

31.0

27.6

25.7

12/02:00

12/02:00

01/28:00

118

118

118

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

23.6

25.8

18.7

06/20:00

01/28:00

09/10:00

23.5

25.0

18.6

03/16:00

01/27:00

10/31:00

22.0

24.6

18.1

06/29:00

12/03:00

02/06:00

20.5

23.2

17.9

12/17:00

12/16:00

11/15:00

19.7

23.1

15.7

07/04:00

12/01:00

05/22:00

18.3

23.0

15.4

07/17:00

01/12:00

02/03:00

18.2

22.6

15.3

11/26:00

11/15:00

08/29:00

18.0

22.4

14.8

12/14:00

01/26:00

12/18:00

17.8

22.1

14.7

11/11:00

01/25:00

06/09:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 16 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2013

2014

2014

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

11-001-0041

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

358

110

83

0

0

0

1

2

1

27.3

27.6

30.7

12/03:00

12/03:00

02/09:00

118

118

145

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

26.7

26.0

24.7

01/28:00

01/28:00

03/02:00

25.5

19.4

23.8

11/16:00

07/18:00

02/01:00

24.6

19.0

20.9

12/04:00

09/10:00

02/11:00

24.0

18.8

19.2

12/02:00

11/15:00

01/02:00

23.9

17.0

19.0

12/17:00

02/06:00

01/08:00

22.9

16.6

18.8

01/27:00

02/03:00

02/02:00

22.3

15.7

18.4

07/19:00

05/22:00

02/15:00

22.1

15.7

18.0

12/01:00

10/04:00

03/05:00

21.6

15.2

17.6

01/26:00

04/10:00

02/08:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 17 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2014

2014

2015

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0042

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

116

347

111

0

0

0

1

1

2

24.6

30.1

24.0

12/22:00

02/09:00

12/20:00

145

145

145

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

22.5

25.8

22.5

12/16:00

03/02:00

12/16:00

21.1

24.4

20.2

12/13:00

01/10:00

12/13:00

17.3

24.3

19.1

01/02:00

12/22:00

02/01:00

16.8

22.7

18.7

01/05:00

12/16:00

01/02:00

16.6

22.6

18.4

02/10:00

12/23:00

07/04:00

15.7

21.5

18.1

02/08:00

12/21:00

01/05:00

15.6

20.0

17.2

07/15:00

12/13:00

02/10:00

15.6

19.9

15.6

08/09:00

06/18:00

08/10:00

15.3

19.7

15.5

11/22:00

02/11:00

08/27:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 18 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2015

2015

2015

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

24 HOUR

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0042

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

120

342

116

0

0

0

1

1

2

26.4

27.7

27.2

06/11:00

06/11:00

06/11:00

145

145

145

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

23.8

27.1

25.2

01/21:00

12/06:00

01/21:00

21.6

25.0

24.8

01/15:00

01/21:00

07/04:00

20.9

24.9

21.4

07/02:00

12/12:00

02/08:00

20.3

24.6

21.1

02/26:00

07/04:00

01/15:00

19.9

21.8

20.5

01/03:00

02/08:00

12/11:00

19.5

21.8

20.2

02/08:00

02/09:00

02/26:00

18.8

21.8

19.3

03/10:00

09/02:00

07/03:00

18.8

21.6

18.7

07/04:00

09/04:00

02/17:00

18.6

21.2

18.7

12/11:00

01/15:00

12/08:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 19 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2015

2011

2012

24 HOUR

24-HR BLK AVG

24-HR BLK AVG

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0051

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

73

303

349

0

0

1

2

4

4

32.5

32.4

37.3

07/04:00

07/21:00

06/21:00

145

170

170

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

26.9

30.1

37.0

06/11:00

07/20:00

12/01:00

25.0

30.0

34.7

12/11:00

06/09:00

07/08:00

24.7

26.3

33.8

07/02:00

09/04:00

12/02:00

23.7

26.0

31.0

12/05:00

05/26:00

07/07:00

23.2

25.0

29.1

12/08:00

06/10:00

06/20:00

21.9

24.2

27.2

07/03:00

05/30:00

06/22:00

20.5

23.8

26.9

08/01:00

07/24:00

06/29:00

19.8

23.5

26.5

07/05:00

07/22:00

07/18:00

19.7

22.3

26.4

09/03:00

06/11:00

08/23:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 20 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2012

2013

2014

24-HR BLK AVG

24-HR BLK AVG

24-HR BLK AVG

Duration:

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

349

349

350

2

5

0

4

4

4

37.3

37.3

31.0

06/21:00

06/21:00

12/03:00

170

170

170

Year:

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

37.0

37.0

29.4

12/01:00

12/01:00

01/28:00

34.7

34.7

28.8

07/08:00

07/08:00

12/04:00

33.8

33.8

27.8

12/02:00

12/02:00

11/16:00

31.0

31.0

27.0

07/07:00

07/07:00

12/02:00

29.1

29.1

26.7

06/20:00

06/20:00

01/27:00

28.4

28.4

26.2

07/04:00

07/04:00

12/01:00

27.2

27.2

26.1

06/22:00

06/22:00

07/19:00

26.9

26.9

25.5

06/29:00

06/29:00

12/17:00

26.5

26.5

24.2

07/18:00

07/18:00

10/31:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 21 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2014

2015

24-HR BLK AVG

24-HR BLK AVG

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

11-001-0043

Washington

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

357

357

357

1

2

5

4

4

4

30.5

30.5

30.5

02/09:00

02/09:00

02/09:00

170

170

170

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

26.3

26.3

26.3

03/02:00

03/02:00

03/02:00

24.0

24.0

24.0

12/22:00

12/22:00

12/22:00

23.6

23.6

23.6

01/10:00

01/10:00

01/10:00

22.4

22.4

22.4

06/18:00

06/18:00

06/18:00

21.9

21.9

21.9

02/11:00

02/11:00

02/11:00

21.8

21.8

21.8

12/21:00

12/21:00

12/21:00

21.1

21.1

21.1

02/01:00

02/01:00

02/01:00

21.0

21.0

21.0

12/16:00

12/16:00

12/16:00

20.8

20.8

20.8

12/23:00

12/23:00

12/23:00

1st Max

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM

Jun. 6, 2016

MAXIMUM VALUES REPORT

Page 22 of 22

District Of Columbia

District Of Columbia

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101)

Primary:

Primary:

Secondary:

Secondary:

2015

2015

24-HR BLK AVG

24-HR BLK AVG

Duration:

Duration:

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Micrograms/cubic meter

(LC)

Unit:

Unit:

11-001-0043

11-001-0051

Washington

Washington

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

361

214

0

0

4

1

30.2

34.0

06/11:00

07/04:00

170

170

Year:

Year:

Site ID

Site ID

POC

POC

EDT

ID

EDT

ID

Num 

Obs 

Num 

Obs 

County Name

County Name

City Name

City Name

Methods

Methods

Maximum Values

Maximum Values

Num

Exc 

Num

Exc 

27.0

30.8

12/12:00

12/12:00

26.9

28.7

07/04:00

09/04:00

26.5

28.6

12/09:00

06/11:00

25.4

27.8

12/06:00

12/09:00

25.3

27.0

09/04:00

12/10:00

24.6

26.7

01/21:00

12/11:00

24.5

26.2

02/08:00

07/02:00

23.5

26.2

09/02:00

09/02:00

23.3

24.0

02/09:00

12/05:00

1st Max

1st Max

2nd Max

2nd Max

3rd Max

3rd Max

4th Max

4th Max

5th Max

5th Max

6th Max

6th Max

7th Max

7th Max

8th Max

8th Max

9th Max

9th Max

10th Max

10th Max

State:

State: