NAAQS & SIP Update

1. NAAQS & SIP Update State & Local Air Director’s Meeting May 22, 2013

2. RDS Staffing Updates - 2013 *Detail to RDS until September 17, 2013 #Military leave until March 2014

3. Today’s points of discussion…. • NAAQS update • SO2 designations and implementation plan/next steps for Region 4 • Regional approaches to address SIP backlog • SIP action approaches • Regional haze – 5 year reports & 2018 SIPs

4. Anticipated NAAQSImplementation Milestones (updated May 2013) Section 110 plans will be needed for multiple NAAQS in coming years.

5. SO2 Designation & Implementation Steve Scofield, U.S. EPA Region4

6. SO2 Implementation Schedule

7. 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standards — Region 4 State Recommendations and EPA Responses

8. Implementation Overview • SO2 strategy paper has been informed by comments received during meetings with stakeholder groups last year • Input has been greatly appreciated • Focus: characterize “current” air quality in areas with largest sources, then use this data for future designations • Recognition that existing monitoring network does not adequately characterize maximum 1-hour concentrations across the country • Flexibility to provide monitoring or modeling data • Intend to issue draft guidance and a notice-and-comment rulemaking, so there will be future opportunities to provide input on the concepts discussed this strategy • Incentive for early reductions to improve public health and avoid nonattainment

9. Background • June 2010: SO2 NAAQS finalized • Proposal emphasized expanded monitoring network. • Commenters expressed concerns related to costs and other issues • Final rule: Fewer monitors required. Preamble: recommended that states should demonstrate attainment statewide in section 110 infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, through hybrid modeling and monitoring approach • March 2011: EPA issued draft designations guidance • Included guidance re: modeling based on allowable emissions to characterize air quality • Sept. 2011: EPA issued draft implementation and modeling guidance. • Guidance indicated that modeling should be based on allowable emissions (because areas would need to show attainment) • Concerns expressed by commenters included: • In effect requiring nonattainment SIPs without any nonattainment designation. • Section 110 plans would be due before nonattainment SIPs.

10. Background - continued • April 2012: McCarthy letter to Environmental Commissioners • EPA announced plan to reconsider implementation approach - not expecting section 110 plans to demonstrate attainment. • Announced plans to hold stakeholder meetings. • May-June 2012: EPA issued white paper and held 3 stakeholder meetings • Also received many written comments • July 2012: EPA extended designation deadline by 1 year, to June 2013 • February 2013: Issued 120-day letters to states, for 30 areas with violating monitors • Also issued strategy paper on next steps for designations in other parts of the country

11. Summary of Stakeholder Input A number of important comments were expressed in the May-June 2012 stakeholder meetings and have informed the updated SO2 NAAQS implementation strategy. Key themes included: • Monitoring vs. modeling • “Threshold” concept • largest emissions sources and/or sources located in areas with higher population • Limited resources • Implementation established through notice-and-comment rulemaking process

12. Expected Implementation Timeline • End 2013: EPA issues proposed rule. • End 2014: EPA issues final rule. • Jan. 2016: Air agency identifies sources that will use monitoring; provide modeling protocol for others. • June 2016: Air agency provides updated monitoring plan • Jan. 2017 • New monitoring sites need to be operational by 1/1/17. Rule will include consequences if monitors are not operational by this date. • For areas to be modeled, air agency submits modeling analysis and boundary recommendation. • Dec. 2017: EPA designates new areas based on modeling.* • Note: Similar timeframe for designations if final NAAQS rule had included a monitoring-only expanded network (2 years for deployment of new sites, 3 years to collect data, 2 years for designations) • Early 2020: New monitoring sites have 3 years of data. Air agency submits boundary recommendations. • Dec. 2020: EPA designates rest of country.* * State plans due 18 months after designations. * Attainment date is no later than 5 years after designations.

13. Incentive for Early Reductions • Air agencies can avoid nonattainment designation by working with sources to establish enforceable emission limitations showing modeled attainment with the SO2 NAAQS prior to second round of designations in 2017 • Permanent source-specific emission limits in SIP or permit; consent decree; etc. • Can take into consideration emission reduction measures that will be implemented for Mercury & Air Toxics Standard & other rules

14. Regional Approaches to Address SIP Backlog Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA Region4

15. FY 2013 Priorities

16. Region 4 Strategies for SIP Efficiency • Team-based approach to SIP processing (processing SIPs by topic vs. by state) • Bundling similar SIP revisions into a single action • Effective use of templates • Detail staff • Coordinating with states to withdraw SIPs that are no longer relevant or required • Work with states to prioritize SIPs & correct deficiencies in a way that maximizes processing efficiencies; increased use of conditional approvals.

17. Success in Region 4 • SIP Processing • So far in FY13, processed 48 actions so far –36 were backlogged In FY12 processed 126 actions. • Resulting in 95 submittals processed of which 73 were backlog. • Reducing SIP backlog while expeditiously processing priority incoming SIPs; providing technical assistance for the designation processes; & responding to emerging technical issues from the states & managing the designation processes. • Enhanced communications for issue resolution • Region 4 has active role on national workgroups to stay informed of emerging issues. • Conscious effort to alert states & regional management as soon as issues emerge in attempt to quickly resolve issues. • Using quarterly & monthly calls to keep states informed.

18. Challenges for FY 2013 • Managing impacts of litigation & petitions on upcoming actions • Balancing priorities with tighter EPA resources • Meeting CD & statutory SIP processing deadlines • Designations • State priorities • Effective use of available tools (i.e., conditional approvals) • Tools for communication • SIP tracking log • Early communications on priority SIPs (predrafts still welcomed!) • Will be important for states to continue to communicate priorities to state contact or RDS chief on monthly calls.

19. SIP Action Approaches

20. Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA… “The Administrator may approve a plan revision based on a commitment of the State adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval if the State fails to comply with such commitment.”

21. What is the Effect of the Conditional Approval? • Allows the State submittal (where the submittal contains control requirements & not just a commitment to adopt enforceable measures) to become federally enforceable even though the submission does not meet all applicable requirements; • Does not start the sanctions & federal implementation plan clocks; • Affords the State a year to complete the submission of the committed revisions.

22. How Does a State Request a Conditional Approval? • The State submits a written request to EPA for conditional approval which provides a commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures within one year to address any deficiencies in the submission. • The request must be made by the party responsible for adopting the specified measures & with the authority to submit SIP revisions to EPA.

23. What are Specific Enforceable Measures? • There must be specific enough to enable EPA to evaluate whether the specified measures, once adopted, will be sufficient to meet the underlying SIP obligation(s) Note: • “Committal SIPs” that simply commit to do that which is already required (e.g., to adopt appropriate contingency measures) may not be sufficiently specific. • EPA also must be able to provide adequate explanation to the public of the revision in order complete the conditional approval rulemaking.

24. Possible Scenarios • Scenario 1: State Meets Commitment • Scenario 2: State Submits Revision by Deadline that is not Approvable • Scenario 3: State Fails to Meet Commitment

25. Scenario 1: State Meets Commitment • Following the State’s submission, EPA has up to 18 months to take action on the submittal during which time the conditional approval remains in place. • Assuming the submission is approvable, EPA converts the conditional approval to full approval at the time the submission is approved.

26. Scenario 2: State Submits Revision by Deadline that is not Approvable • EPA goes through notice-and-comment rulemaking to disapprove the submittal. • EPA’s previous conditional approval is converted to a disapproval through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Note: the 18-month clock for sanctions (if applicable) & the 2-year clock for a FIP start as of the date of final disapproval.

27. Scenario 3: State Fails to Meet Commitment • The conditional approval automatically converts to a disapproval once the State fails to submit the revisions by the conditional approval deadline. • Although EPA publishes a notice of the conversion to a disapproval in the Federal Register, no notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to convert the conditional approval to a disapproval. Note: EPA also issues a finding to the State notifying it of the disapproval. This letter triggers the 18 month sanction clock (if applicable) & 24 month FIP clock.

28. EPA’s Considerations When Evaluating Conditional Approval Requests • Generally, the greater the extent to which a submittal is lacking in important plan elements, the less appropriate the use of conditional approval may be. • EPA should have some level of confidence that the State will be able to meet its commitment, • Where the underlying submission is past due, conditional approvals are generally less appropriate. • The State revision to meet the conditional approval commitment should be consistent with the specific enforceable revisions described in the commitment letter. • EPA will not conditionally approve a certain rule more than once.

29. Regional Haze Progress Reports

30. Progress Report & Adequacy Check • Requirements: • Progress Report – 40 CFR 51.308(g) and Adequacy Check – 40 CFR 51.308(h). • Due five years after submittal of initial regional haze SIP. • Progress Report must address seven key elements. • National Activities: • April 2013 - EPA finalized “Principles Document” to aid states and EPA with development and review of these SIPs • Federal Register template for EPA’s future proposal actions on Progress SIPs drafted and under internal review.

31. Progress Report & Adequacy Check This… • SIPs Submitted: • Final Progress Report SIPs submitted: SC , TN. • Prehearings completed: NC – final expected soon. • Draft Progress SIPs submitted: GA. • Federal Register Actions Drafted: • SC proposal action under review. • TN action in drafting process. Or This…

32. 2018 Regional Haze SIPs • Due Dates: next comprehensive SIP due July 31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. • Lessons learned process to inform 2018 SIPs: • Agency currently discussing internally. • Planning to reach out to external stakeholders. • Scope includes: what worked well, what can be improved, what improvements may necessitate rule revisions, other?

33. Questions?