Technical Support Document 

California 2007 Transport SIP 

Evaluation of Interference with Measures in Other States to Prevent Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality in Relation to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and 

1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS 

U.S .EPA, Region 9 

May 20, 2011
(This page intentionally left blank.) 
Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on certain submittals made by 

California to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements, 

commonly referred to as transport SIPs, for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS. This technical support 

document (TSD) presents EPA’s evaluation of these submittals under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),1which requires the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain, among other 

things, adequate provisions prohibiting emissions of air pollutants in amounts which will 

interfere with any other State’s required measures under title I, part C of the CAA, to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality. We refer to this requirement as “element (3)” of CAA 

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

Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 38856) and promulgated a new 

NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The ozone NAAQS is based on the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS 

was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. The new PM2.5 NAAQS established 

a health-based and welfare-based PM2.5 standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) 

based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 

65μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

Within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 110(a) of the 

CAA requires each State to submit a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. Although States typically have met many of the basic program 

elements required in section 110(a)(2), commonly referred to as “infrastructure SIP” 

requirements, through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone and particulate 

matter (PM) standards, States were still required to submit SIP revisions that address section 

110(a)(2) for the new 1997 NAAQS. These SIP revisions were due in July 2000. However, 

intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty about 

how to proceed and many States did not submit any SIP revisions to meet these infrastructure 

requirements by the July 18, 2000 deadline. 

In March of 2004, plaintiffs sued EPA for failure to take action to require SIP submissions 

meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

 

1 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) states, in relevant part: “(2) Each implementation plan submitted by a State under 

this chapter shall be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Each such plan shall– *** (D) 

contain adequate provisions– (i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or other 

type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will– *** (II) interfere 

with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C of this 

subchapter to prevent significant deterioration of air quality ***.” 
2 

NAAQS. Pursuant to a Consent Decree between EPA and the plaintiffs, on April 25, 2005 (70 

FR 21147), EPA published an action in the Federal Register finding that States had failed to 

make required SIP submissions for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS to address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) pertaining to interstate transport (transport SIPs). This 

action, which became effective May 25, 2005, started a 24-month clock for EPA to promulgate 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for 

both the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, or to approve SIP submissions meeting these 

requirements. The 24-month FIP clock expired on May 25, 2007. 

On June 3, 2009, plaintiffs sued EPA for failure to promulgate FIPs meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for seven western states, including California, or to approve the 

required Transport SIPs in lieu thereof, by the May 25, 2007 deadline. Under the terms of a 

Consent Decree between EPA and the plaintiffs,

2

 EPA is obligated to approve a SIP, promulgate 

a FIP, or approve a SIP in part with promulgation of a partial FIP for California to meet element 

(3) of the Transport SIP requirement by July 10, 2011. 

2006 Guidance and Related PSD/NNSR Requirements

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidance (herein “2006 Guidance”) to assist States and EPA 

Regional offices in developing and evaluating, respectively, Transport SIPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.3 As to the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 

measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, the 2006 Guidance states that these 

requirements may be met by the State’s confirmation in a SIP submission that major sources and 

major modifications in the State are subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs that implement the relevant standards.4 

The PSD and NNSR permit programs require preconstruction permits to protect the air quality 

within each state and are designed to prohibit construction of new major sources and major 

modifications at existing major sources from contributing to nonattainment in surrounding areas, 

including nearby states. Specifically, a PSD permit may not be issued unless the new or modified 

source demonstrates that emissions from the construction or operation of the facility will not 

cause or contribute to air pollution in any area that exceeds any NAAQS or any maximum 

allowable increase (i.e., PSD increment). 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); 40 CFR 51.166(k). An NNSR 

permit may not be issued unless the new or modified source shows it has obtained sufficient 

emissions reductions to offset increases in emissions of the pollutants for which an area is 

designated nonattainment, consistent with reasonable further progress toward attainment. 42 

U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). Because the PSD and NNSR permitting programs 

 

2

See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No. 4:09-CV-02453-CW), Consent Decree dated November 10, 2009, 

as amended by Notice of Stipulated Extensions to Consent Decree Deadlines, dated April 28, 2011. 

3

 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, “Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” August 15, 2006. 

4

Id. at 6. 
3 

currently applicable in each area require a demonstration that new or modified sources will not 

cause or contribute to air pollution in excess of the NAAQS in neighboring states or that sources 

in nonattainment areas procure offsets, States may satisfy the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality by 

submitting SIPs confirming that major sources and major modifications in the State are subject to 

PSD and NNSR programs that implement current requirements. 

As such, we have evaluated California’s PSD and NNSR preconstruction permitting programs to 

determine whether these programs implement the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Given 

EPA’s recent requirement that stationary sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions also obtain 

PSD permits for emissions of GHGs at or above certain thresholds, we have also evaluated 

California’s PSD programs to ensure that these programs contain proper authority for GHG 

permits. 

An evaluation of a State’s preconstruction permitting program must cover the State’s entire 

geographic area. In California’s case, preconstruction review authority is delegated to 35 local 

air quality management and air quality control districts (Districts), which together cover the full 

geographic extent of the State. Any area designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

or PM2.5 NAAQS is subject to preconstruction review according to either an NNSR SIP or an 

interim program under 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S (until such time as an NNSR SIP is 

approved by EPA). If the State lacks authority to review preconstruction permits in a 

nonattainment area by one of these means, then EPA is the NNSR permitting authority for that 

area. Any area designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone or PM2.5

NAAQS is subject to preconstruction review according to an EPA-approved PSD SIP or the PSD 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 52.21. EPA may delegate its authority to 

implement the Federal PSD program to a State or District, in which case the State or District 

implements the PSD FIP under a delegation agreement with EPA. We have conducted an 

evaluation of California’s PSD and NNSR preconstruction permitting programs as described 

below (see the section entitled “Evaluation of State Submittal”). 

PSD and NNSR SIP requirements for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS

On November 29, 2005, EPA published the Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 70 FR 71612 (“Phase 2 Rule”). For ozone nonattainment areas, the Phase 2 Rule 

requires specific revisions to States’ NNSR SIPs to implement the requirements of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, as applicable based on each area’s classification for the ozone standard. 

70 FR 71612 at 71675, 71698-71699. Specifically, the Phase 2 Rule requires that NNSR SIPs 

apply all NNSR requirements that apply to major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

to major nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions sources, except where a NOx waiver applies under 

section 182(f) of the Act. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8). In addition, NNSR SIPs must include provisions 

establishing the applicable major stationary source thresholds, significant emissions rates, and 
4 

offset ratios for VOCs and NOx based on each area’s classification, as listed below in Table 1. 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv), (a)(1)(v), (a)(1)(x), (a)(8), (a)(9). 

Table 1: VOC and NOx Thresholds and Offset Ratios by Ozone Classification 

Classification Subpart 1* Marginal Moderate Serious Severe Extreme 

Major Source (tons 

per year (tpy)) 

100 100 100 50 25 10 

Significant 

Emissions Rate (tpy)

40 40 40 25 25 0 

Offset Ratio51 to 1 1.1 to 1 1.15 to 1 1.2 to 1 1.3 to 1 1.5 to 1 

* Note: Although the “subpart 1” category is not a classification, the general requirements of subpart 1, part D of 

title I of the CAA apply in all ozone nonattainment areas (to the extent they are not superseded by the more specific 

requirements of subpart 2), including those areas now referred to as “former subpart 1 areas” pursuant to the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals’ vacatur of certain elements of EPA's Phase 1 ozone implementation rule (69 FR 23951, 

April 30, 2004). See South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), reh'g 

denied 489 F.3d 1245 (clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the court granted the petitions 

for review). 

For areas designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Phase 2 

Rule requires revisions to PSD SIPs to require explicit identification of NOx as an ozone 

precursor. 70 FR at 71679, 71699-71700; 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), 

(b)(49)(i). In areas subject to the Federal PSD program, EPA’s revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 

(including regulation of NOx as an ozone precursor) became effective January 30, 2006. 70 FR 

71612 at 71683. 

The Phase 2 Rule required States to submit the relevant PSD and NNSR SIP revisions to address 

the 1997 8-hour NAAQS by June 15, 2007. 70 FR 71612 at 71683 (November 29, 2005). Under 

40 CFR 52.24(k), however, during the period of time allowed for States to amend their existing 

NNSR programs following designation as nonattainment, States are allowed to rely on the 

procedures under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S (“The Interpretative Rule”) to issue permits to new 

or modified major stationary sources proposing to locate in an ozone nonattainment area. 

PSD and NNSR SIP requirements for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS

On May 16, 2008, EPA published a final rule containing requirements for SIPs to implement the 

PSD and NNSR provisions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment 

areas. 73 FR 28321 (“PM2.5 NSR Rule”). For areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for 

 

5

For any nonattainment area classified as severe or extreme, if the approved plan requires all existing major sources 

in such an area to use Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to control VOC and NOx, then the ratio must be 

at least 1.2 to 1. CAA sections 182(d)(2), (e)(1) and 182(f). 
5 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 NSR Rule establishes new PSD requirements under 40 CFR 

51.166 for SIP-approved PSD programs to implement the new PM2.5 requirements, and similar 

requirements for the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21. For areas designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 NSR Rule establishes new requirements under 40 CFR 

51.165 for States to include in their SIP-approved NNSR programs to address the PM2.5

NAAQS. Id. Under 40 CFR 52.24(k), during the period of time allowed for States to amend their 

existing NNSR programs to address the new PM2.5 requirements, States are allowed to rely on 

the procedures under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S (“The Interpretative Rule”) to issue permits to 

new or modified major stationary sources proposing to locate in a PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

The PM2.5 NSR Rule required States to submit the relevant PSD and NNSR SIP revisions to 

address the PM2.5 NAAQS by May 16, 2011. 73 FR 28321 at 28341. The preamble to the PM2.5 

NSR Rule provides that States with SIP-approved PSD programs may continue to implement the 

program for particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10) as a surrogate for meeting the 

PSD program requirements for PM2.5 pursuant to a 1997 guidance document entitled “Interim 

Implementation for the New Source Review Requirements for PM2.5,” October 23, 1997 (“PM10 

Surrogate Policy”). See 73 FR at 28341. As of May 16, 2011, however, EPA has ended the use 

of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in SIP-approved PSD program areas. See 76 FR 28646 (May 18, 

2011); see also 75 FR 6827 (February 11, 2010) (proposal to end early the use of the PM10

Surrogate Policy in SIP program areas). 

Consistent with EPA’s end to the use of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in SIP-approved PSD 

program areas, we are evaluating California’s existing PSD SIP programs to determine whether 

each program requires owners and operators of sources and permitting authorities to conduct 

permit-related PM2.5 analyses, and to ensure that these programs do not allow the automatic use 

of a PM10 analysis as a surrogate for satisfying PM2.5 requirements. 

In areas subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, the PM2.5 requirements of 40 CFR 

52.21 apply as of July 15, 2008, including regulation of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx as 

precursors. 73 FR 28321 at 28340, 28343.6

In areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 requirements of The 

Interpretative Rule apply to new or modified major stationary sources of PM2.5 or SO2 (as a 

precursor) pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k), until EPA approves SIP revisions addressing the NNSR 

program requirements for PM2.5. 73 FR at 28343. 

PSD SIP requirements for GHGs

EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the regulation of GHGs that 

establish that beginning on January 2, 2011, new or modified sources of GHG emissions at or 

above certain thresholds are required to seek PSD permits. Four of these actions include, as they 

 

6 The PM2.5 NSR Rule ended the PM10 Surrogate Policy in Federal PSD program areas. 73 FR 28321 at 28343. 
6 

are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and “Cause or Contribute Finding,” which 

EPA issued in a single final action,7the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,”8the “Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,”9and the “Tailoring Rule.”10 Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, 

these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took effect on 

January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. A SIP must 

provide the State with the authority to issue PSD permits for GHG emissions at the applicability 

thresholds established in the Tailoring Rule, or at lower thresholds at which the State can show 

EPA that it will have the resources to implement GHG PSD permitting. 

State Submittal

California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a strategy to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS on September 27, 2007, and submitted it to EPA as a SIP revision on November 

16, 2007 (herein “2007 State Strategy”).11 This submittal included Appendix C (herein “2007 

Transport SIP”), which was written to specifically address the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding interstate transport of ozone and PM2.5, and Attachment A, which 

provided “Technical and Clarifying Modifications” to several sections of the 2007 Transport 

SIP. 

For the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to PSD, the submittal asserted 

that all areas of California are subject to some form of preconstruction program for ozone and 

PM2.5 and that “[t]hese rules are as stringent, or more stringent, than the federal preconstruction 

programs (PSD and NNSR).”12 The submittal also stated that California was on track to submit 

SIPs to meet the preconstruction program requirements of the Phase 2 Rule and was 

implementing preconstruction programs for PM2.5 according to the PM10 Surrogate Policy. 

Finally, it includes a list of local air districts that implement the PSD and NNSR programs 

throughout the State. 

 

7

“Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air 

Act.” 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009). 

8

“Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.” 75 FR 

17004 (April 2, 2010). 

9

“Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final 

Rule.” 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

10 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.” 75 FR 31514 

(June 3, 2010). 

11 CARB Resolution No. 07–28, September 27, 2007 with attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007 with enclosures. 

12 See 2007 Transport SIP, Attachment A of 2007 State Strategy at 21-22 (modifying Appendix C of 2007 State 

Strategy). 
7 

Evaluation of State Submittal

The 2007 Transport SIP asserts that California has met the requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to not interfere with other States’ implementation plan measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. However, 

the SIP revision offers little information to support this assertion and much time has passed since 

its submittal on November 16, 2007. During this time, the June 15, 2007 deadline for PSD and 

NNSR SIP revisions to address 8-hour ozone requirements under the Phase 2 Rule has passed. 

EPA has also ended the use of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in both Federal PSD program areas and 

SIP-approved program areas, as discussed above. 

The 2007 Transport SIP relied solely on EPA’s 2006 Guidance and, therefore, did not fully 

address certain program requirements that EPA believes are relevant to our evaluation. We have, 

therefore, conducted an independent evaluation of California’s PSD and NNSR programs in 

relation to specific implementation provisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and 

GHG authorities that we believe are necessary for approval of the 2007 Transport SIP, as 

summarized below in Table 2. 

 
8 

Table 2: Evaluation Criteria for PSD and NNSR Programs Specific to 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and GHGs 

Pollutant Designation 

Program 

Type 1997 NAAQS Implementation Requirements 

Ozone Unclassifiable/ 

Attainment 

SIPapproved 

PSD* 

NOx as an ozone precursor 

Ozone Nonattainment, 

Subpart 2 

NNSR NOx as an ozone precursor; relevant major source 

threshold, significant emissions rate, and offset 

ratio for 8-hour classification (per Table 1, above) 

Ozone Nonattainment, 

Former 

Subpart 1 

NNSR For areas in SIP development period under 40 

CFR 52.24(k), implementation of The 

Interpretative Rule 

For areas subject to 1-hour ozone NNSR program, 

NOx as ozone precursor; relevant major source 

threshold, significant emissions rate, and offset 

ratio for 8-hour NAAQS under subpart 1 (per 

Table 1, above). 

PM2.5 Unclassifiable/ 

Attainment 

SIPapproved 

PSD* 

Approved PSD SIP addressing PM2.5 

requirements, or provisions in existing SIP 

requiring permit-related analyses based on PM2.5

PM2.5 Nonattainment NNSR Approved NNSR SIP addressing PM2.5 

requirements, or implementation of The 

Interpretative Rule 

GHGs N/A SIPapproved 

PSD* 

Approved PSD SIP providing GHG PSD 

permitting authority at and above thresholds 

consistent with the Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 

(June 3, 2010). 

* Note: the Federal PSD program (i.e., PSD FIP) in 40 CFR 52.21 incorporates all current PSD program 

requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. 

We conducted this review for each of the 35 permitting authorities (“Districts”)13 in California, 

which cover the entire geographic extent of the State excluding Indian country.

14 Given the 

 

13 Although EPA’s air quality designations for California in 40 CFR 81.305 are defined by planning areas, we 

discuss the relevant PSD and NNSR program requirements as they apply to the local permitting agencies that 
9 

number of Districts subject to SIP-approved NNSR and PSD programs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, we have included Enclosure A to this TSD (“Enclosure A: California 

Nonattainment NSR and PSD Rules for 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS”), which 

identifies the SIP-approved NNSR and PSD rules that implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

each District. Districts in California with nonattainment areas generally implement either a SIPapproved NNSR program or The Interpretative Rule in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S. Districts 

with unclassifiable/attainment areas implement a SIP-approved PSD program or are subject to 

the PSD FIP in 40 CFR part 52.21 implemented by EPA or, if delegated, implemented by the 

District on behalf of EPA. 

Designation status for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS

For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 20 of the 35 Districts are entirely (12 Districts) or partially 

(eight Districts) designated nonattainment.15 The remaining 15 Districts, and the remaining 

portions of the eight Districts that are partially designated nonattainment, are currently 

designated unclassifiable/attainment. For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, one District – the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District or “APCD” (San Joaquin) – is entirely designated 

nonattainment, and another District – the South Coast Air Quality Management District or 

“AQMD” (South Coast District) – is partially designated nonattainment. The remaining 33 

Districts and the eastern-most portion of the South Coast District are designated 

unclassifiable/attainment. See 40 CFR 81.305. We provide below our evaluation of California’s 

NNSR and PSD programs for compliance with the criteria discussed above. 

NNSR provisions for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas

As mentioned above, 20 of the 35 Districts implement the NNSR program in areas that are 

entirely or partially designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These 

Districts fall into two categories. Twelve Districts implement the NNSR program in eight 

nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 of part D, title I of the Act. Nine Districts 

implement the NNSR program in seven “former subpart 1” nonattainment areas under the 1997 

 

implement these requirements in each planning area. We use the term “District” throughout this document to refer 

both to the local agency responsible for issuing PSD/NNSR permits and to the geographic area over which that 

agency has jurisdiction. 

14 California’s SIP obligations under the CAA do not apply in Indian country. 

15 Fifteen air quality planning areas in California are designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See 40 CFR 81.305. Of the 20 Districts that implement permit programs in these 15 nonattainment areas, 12 are 

entirely designated nonattainment, while eight are partially designated nonattainment. Districts that are entirely 

designated nonattainment include the following: Amador County APCD, Antelope Valley AQMD, Bay Area 

AQMD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County APCD, Imperial County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, 

Sacramento Metro AQMD, San Diego County APCD, San Joaquin Valley APCD, Tuolumne County APCD, and 

Yolo-Solano AQMD. Districts that are only partially designated nonattainment include the following: Eastern Kern 

APCD, El Dorado County AQMD, Feather River AQMD, Mojave Desert AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Placer 

County APCD, South Coast AQMD, and Ventura County APCD. See Enclosure B of this TSD for a map that 

reflects this overlay of Districts and nonattainment areas (“Enclosure B: Maps Overlaying Districts, PSD Program 

Status, and Nonattainment Areas in California for 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS”). 
10 

8-hour ozone standard. Note that Feather River AQMD is partially designated nonattainment 

(and partially designated unclassifiable/attainment) and has two distinct nonattainment areas: one 

“former subpart 1” nonattainment area (Sutter Buttes), and another nonattainment area classified 

under subpart 2 (the Sacramento Metro portion of the District). See 40 CFR 81.305. This 

explains why there are 20 (not 21) Districts that have nonattainment areas. 

For the 12 Districts with nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 of part D, title I of the 

CAA, EPA has reviewed the SIP-approved NNSR rules for these Districts and determined that 

all but three of these SIP programs meet the program requirements listed above in Table 2 (see 

Enclosure A for specific details). The three Districts in which the SIP-approved NNSR programs 

do not currently satisfy these program requirements are Placer County APCD (Placer), Feather 

River AQMD (Feather River), and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD (Sacramento District). All 

three of these agencies implement NNSR permit programs in the Sacramento Metro area,16

which was initially designated and classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).17

In separate actions, EPA has proposed to approve NNSR SIP revisions submitted by Placer, 

Feather River, and Sacramento District to meet the program requirements identified above in 

Table 1. See 76 FR 28944 (May 19, 2011) for Placer and Feather River; 76 FR 28942 (May 19, 

2011) for Sacramento District. We propose to determine that final approval of these NNSR SIP 

revisions will address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for these Districts.18 Alternatively, for any area for which we cannot finalize approval 

of the submitted NNSR SIP by our July 10, 2011 Consent Decree deadline for final action on 

element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP, we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to 

promulgate an NNSR FIP as appropriate. This NNSR FIP would be based on Sacramento 

District’s Rule 202 (as approved on June 19, 1985, 50 FR 25417) and the provisions of The 

Interpretative Rule (40 CFR part 51 Appendix S) regulating NOx as an ozone precursor and 

establishing the major source threshold, significant emission rate, and offset ratio applicable to 

the area’s 8-hour (serious) classification. See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S at sections 

II.A.4(i)(b), II.A.4(ii), II.A.5(iv), II.A.10, II.A.31(iii)(a), and IV.G.2. Thus, for all new major 

sources of NOx or VOCs in the relevant area (i.e., sources that emit or potentially emit at least 50 

 

16 The Sacramento Metro 8-hour ozone nonattainment area includes all of Sacramento County and Yolo County, and 

portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Sutter Counties. The Districts that implement permit programs in this 

area are El Dorado County AQMD, Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, 

and Yolo-Solano AQMD. 

17 Effective June 4, 2010, EPA reclassified this area as a “severe-15” nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010). In connection with that action, EPA established a deadline of June 4, 2011 for 

the State to submit SIP revisions for these areas addressing the NSR requirements for “severe-15” ozone 

nonattainment areas. These requirements are outside the scope of today’s proposed action on the transport SIP. 

18 A limited approval and limited disapproval of the submitted NNSR SIP revision would suffice for these purposes, 

provided the disapproval does not pertain to any of the specific NNSR provisions that are necessary for approval of 

element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 
11 

ton per year) and major modifications to existing sources of these pollutants that are not subject 

to an existing SIP-approved NNSR program, EPA would implement Sacramento District’s SIPapproved Rule 202, in addition to the provisions of The Interpretative Rule as discussed above, 

as applicable. EPA would maintain authority to implement these requirements unless and until it 

delegates such authority to the District. The District’s authority to continue implementing the 

NNSR program for sources covered by any existing SIP-approved program would, however, 

remain unchanged. 

Nine Districts implement NNSR permit programs in seven “former subpart 1” nonattainment 

areas in California. EPA designated these areas as “subpart 1” nonattainment in 2004 for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and required each area to implement the requirements of subpart 1 

of part D, title I of the Act. See 40 CFR 81.305; 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). Because the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals vacated those elements of EPA's Phase 1 ozone implementation rule 

that placed these areas solely under the implementation requirements of subpart 1, these areas are 

now referred to as “former subpart 1 areas.” See South Coast Air Quality Management District v. 

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), reh'g denied 489 F.3d 1245. EPA has proposed to classify 

each of these areas under subpart 2 of part D, title I of the Act but has not yet finalized this 

rulemaking. 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009). 

Two of these former subpart 1 areas (Eastern Kern and San Diego) are subject to SIP-approved 

NNSR programs implemented by Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego County APCD, 

respectively. These NNSR programs, which were developed to implement the previous 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, identify NOx as an ozone precursor and contain the relevant major source 

thresholds, significant emission rates, and offset ratios that currently apply for 8-hour ozone 

purposes, i.e., the requirements under subpart 1 of part D, title I of the Act (see Enclosure A). We 

propose to approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these two former subpart 1 areas, based 

on a determination that the existing NNSR programs for these two areas meet the relevant 

program requirements listed above in Table 2 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The seven Districts19 covering the remaining five former subpart 1 areas (Central Mountain 

Counties, Chico, Southern Mountain Counties, Sutter Buttes, and Western Nevada County) had 

no SIP-approved NNSR program as of the date they were designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS.20 Pursuant to 40 CFR 52.24(k), these five areas became subject to the 

permitting provisions in The Interpretative Rule (40 CFR part 51 Appendix S) upon designation 

as nonattainment for the 8-hour standard and remain subject to these NNSR permitting 

 

19 These seven Districts are as follows: Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County APCD, 

Feather River AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County APCD, and Tuolumne County APCD. 

20 Three of these former subpart 1 areas (Central Mountain Counties, Southern Mountain Counties, and Western 

Nevada County) were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the remaining two 

former subpart 1 areas (Chico and Sutter Buttes) were designated as “section 185A transition” nonattainment for the 

1-hour standard. See 40 CFR 81.305. 
12 

requirements until EPA approves an NNSR program for the area, except that the waiver 

provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S no longer apply. See Phase 2 Rule, 75 

FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (vacating 

EPA’s elimination of the 18-month limitation in 40 CFR 52.24(k) with respect to the waiver 

provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S). 

The California SIP remains deficient for purposes of 8-hour ozone NNSR requirements in these 

five former subpart 1 areas that do not yet have approved NNSR programs under part D, title I of 

the Act. Thus, we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these five former subpart 1 

areas. As discussed above, EPA has proposed to classify each of these areas under subpart 2 of 

part D, title I of the Act but has not yet finalized this rulemaking. 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009) 

(proposing to require states to submit all required SIP elements for the areas’ subpart 2 

classifications one year after the effective date of a final rule classifying the areas). In the 

interim, these areas are currently subject to NNSR permitting requirements under The 

Interpretative Rule in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, except for the waiver provisions in section 

VI. We propose to determine that implementation of The Interpretative Rule during this interim 

period pending the final subpart 2 classifications adequately addresses the requirements of 

element (3) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in these areas and that this discharges EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a FIP for these limited purposes. In proposing this determination, we are taking into 

account the unusual circumstances present here: in particular, the proposal to classify these areas 

under subpart 2, which if finalized as proposed would affect the stringency of the NNSR 

thresholds and offsets required for an approvable NSR program in these areas. This proposal 

applies only to our FIP obligation in this particular circumstance and should not be construed as 

an interpretation of our obligations in other nonattainment areas where The Interpretative Rule 

currently applies under 40 CFR 52.24(k). 

PSD provisions for 8-hour ozone unclassifiable/attainment areas

As mentioned above, 15 entire Districts, and portions of eight additional Districts, are currently 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. All of these Districts, 

except four, are currently subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. The California SIP remains 

deficient for purposes of 8-hour ozone PSD requirements in those areas subject to the Federal 

PSD program. Thus, we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these areas. Because 

EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas, however, no further action is required 

to address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

these areas. 

The remaining four Districts, Monterey Bay Unified APCD (Monterey), North Coast Unified 

AQMD (North Coast), Northern Sonoma County APCD (Northern Sonoma), and Mendocino 

County AQMD (Mendocino) have SIP-approved PSD programs. We reviewed the SIP-approved 
13 

PSD rules for these Districts and determined that Monterey’s existing SIP PSD program 

identifies NOx as an ozone precursor (see Enclosure A). Thus, we propose to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for Monterey, based on a determination that the SIP-approved PSD program for 

Monterey meets the program requirements identified above in Table 1. 

The SIP-approved PSD programs for the other three Districts (Mendocino, North Coast, and 

Northern Sonoma) do not currently identify NOx as an ozone precursor. Separately, by direct 

final rule on May 6, 2011, EPA has approved PSD SIP revisions submitted by Mendocino and 

Northern Sonoma to explicitly identify NOx as an ozone precursor. See 76 FR 26192 and 76 FR 

26224 (May 6, 2011). We propose to determine that these PSD SIP revisions satisfy element (3) 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these Districts. If, 

however, either of these approvals is withdrawn and does not become effective by our July 10, 

2011 Consent Decree deadline for final action on element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP, we 

propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to promulgate a limited PSD FIP for the 

relevant area. Under this limited PSD FIP, EPA would implement the provisions of 40 CFR 

52.21 for those projects which are major stationary sources or major modifications for NOx

emissions. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), and (b)(50)(i)(a). EPA would retain 

authority to implement these PSD requirements, unless and until it delegates such authority to 

the District. 

We note that although North Coast has also submitted PSD SIP revisions to address this 

requirement, among others, we are proposing to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with respect 

to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to 

promulgate a limited PSD FIP for North Coast because we do not expect to finalize approval of 

that PSD submittal by our July 10, 2011 Consent Decree deadline for final action on element (3) 

of the 2007 Transport SIP. Thus, for North Coast, we are proposing to promulgate a limited PSD 

FIP under which EPA would implement the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 for those projects which 

are major stationary sources or major modifications for NOx emissions. See 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), and (b)(50)(i)(a). EPA intends to implement these PSD 

requirements in North Coast, for NOx emission sources only, unless and until it delegates such 

authority to the District. 

NNSR provisions for PM2.5 nonattainment areas

As mentioned above, for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, one District (San Joaquin) is entirely 

designated nonattainment while another (South Coast District) is partially designated 

nonattainment. The PM2.5 NSR Rule requires CARB to submit NNSR SIP revisions for such 

areas no later than May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). During the SIP development 

period, these areas are subject to The Interpretative Rule in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S. San 

Joaquin and South Coast District have confirmed to EPA that they will continue to apply the 
14 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S to any prospective projects that trigger PM2.5 NSR 

requirements in the interim.

21 We propose to approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to 

element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for these two areas, 

based on a determination that implementation of The Interpretative Rule in San Joaquin and the 

nonattainment portion of South Coast District is adequate to address element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in these areas. 

PSD provisions for PM2.5 unclassifiable/attainment areas

The remaining 33 Districts and the eastern-most portion of South Coast District (the Coachella 

Valley planning area) are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In all 

but five of these Districts (29 Districts, including South Coast District), the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 

part 52.21 applies. Thus, under the PM2.5 NSR Rule, the PM2.5 requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 

became applicable in these 29 Districts as of July 15, 2008, including regulation of SO2 and NOx

as precursors. See 73 FR at 28340, 28343 (May 16, 2008). Because the California SIP remains 

deficient with respect to PSD requirements in these areas, we propose to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS for these areas. Because EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas, 

however, no further action is required to address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in these areas. 

The remaining five Districts (Monterey, North Coast, Northern Sonoma, Mendocino, and 

Sacramento District) have SIP-approved PSD programs. We have reviewed the SIP-approved 

PSD rules for each of these Districts and determined that all five of these SIP PSD programs 

currently meet the requirements listed above in Table 2. Specifically, the SIP-approved rules for 

Monterey, North Coast, Northern Sonoma, and Mendocino authorize these Districts to 

implement their SIP PSD programs for any pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA, 

including both GHGs and PM2.5. See 75 FR 53883 at 53886 (September 2, 2010) (identifying 

“presumptive adequacy list” for GHG PSD permitting purposes). Each of these four Districts has 

confirmed its authority to regulate such pollutants in a letter submitted to EPA in response to the 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010).22 In addition, Sacramento 

District’s SIP-approved PSD program authorizes it to implement the program for “[a]ll pollutants 

for which an ambient air quality standard has been established by the [US EPA] or [CARB] and 

 

21 See Policy Memorandum dated October 27, 2009, “San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD: Interim New Source 

Review Requirements for PM2.5”; email dated September 4, 2010, from Mohsen Nazemi, South Coast AQMD to 

Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, “Appendix S Implementation of NSR for PM2.5.” 

22 See letter dated July 28, 2010, from Richard Stedman, Monterey Bay Unified APCD to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA 

Region 9, re: “Implementation of Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule”; letter dated July 30, 2010, from Barbara A. Lee, 

Northern Sonoma County APCD to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Region 9, re: “Implementation of Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rule for PSD and Title V”; letter dated July 30, 2010, from Richard L. Martin, Jr., North Coast Unified 

AQMD to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Region 9, re: “PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Implementation,” 

as clarified by August 8, 2010 letter; and letter dated July 30, 2010, from Christopher D. Brown, Mendocino County 

AQMD to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Region 9, re: “Implementation of Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule for PSD and 

Title V and Additional PSD Amendments.” 
15 

the precursors to such pollutants....” See Sacramento Rule 202 (as approved June 19, 1985, 50 

FR 25417), sections 102, 202. This provides the necessary authority for Sacramento District to 

regulate PM2.5 under its SIP-approved PSD program. Thus, because the existing SIP-approved 

PSD programs for Monterey, North Coast, Northern Sonoma, Mendocino, and Sacramento 

District require owners and operators of sources and permitting authorities to conduct permitrelated PM2.5 analyses, we propose to approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for these areas based on a 

determination that these five SIP-approved PSD programs satisfy the implementation 

requirements identified above in Table 2 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Nonetheless, by direct 

final rule on May 6, 2011, EPA approved PSD SIP revisions submitted by Northern Sonoma and 

Mendocino to address the PSD program requirements for PM2.5. See 76 FR 26192 and 76 FR 

26224 (May 6, 2011). These PSD SIP revisions will further strengthen the California SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

PSD authority to regulate GHGs

Three Districts (Northern Sonoma, Mendocino, and North Coast) were subject to EPA’s recently 

promulgated rule, Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans (“PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule”) (75 FR 82536, Dec. 30, 2010). In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA 

withdrew its previous approval of California’s PSD programs for these three Districts to the 

extent that the programs applied PSD permit requirements to GHG emissions increases from 

GHG-emitting sources below the thresholds set in EPA’s June 3, 2010 Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (“Tailoring Rule”) (75 FR 31514). 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP relies, in part, on the PSD programs for Northern Sonoma, 

Mendocino, and North Coast as of November 2007—which was before December 30, 2010, the 

effective date of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule—to satisfy the “interference with PSD” 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On April 21, May 5, and May 9 of 2011, Mendocino, Northern 

Sonoma, and North Coast, respectively, each submitted letters to clarify that the 2007 Transport 

SIP should be read with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to reflect each of their PSD 

programs as they are currently federally approved as a result of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 

FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010).23 EPA proposes, therefore, to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP 

for Northern Sonoma, Mendocino, and North Coast with respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). In addition, Monterey has confirmed that its SIP provides GHG PSD permitting 

authority at thresholds consistent with the Tailoring Rule. See Monterey Bay Unified APCD, 

Rule 207 (as approved February 4, 2000, 65 FR 5433); see also letter dated July 28, 2010, from 

Richard Stedman, Monterey Bay Unified APCD to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Region 9, re: 

 

23 See letter dated April 21, 2011, from Christopher D. Brown, APCO, Mendocino County AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, 

EPA Region 9, re: “Clarification of the 2007 Transport SIP as it relates to the PSD Program in Mendocino County”; 

letter dated May 5, 2011, from Barbara A. Lee, Northern Sonoma APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, re: 

“Clarification of the CA Transport SIP submittal”; letter dated May 9, 2011, from Richard Martin, APCO, North 

Coast Unified AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9. 
16 

“Implementation of Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.” We propose, therefore, to fully approve 

the 2007 Transport SIP for Monterey with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Finally, Sacramento District was subject to EPA’s recently promulgated rule, Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call (“PSD GHG SIP Call”) (75 FR 77698, Dec. 13, 2010). In 

the PSD GHG SIP Call, EPA determined that Sacramento District’s PSD program was 

substantially inadequate because it did not apply to GHG-emitting sources, and established a 

deadline of January 31, 2011, for the District to submit its corrective SIP revision. Sacramento 

District submitted the corrective SIP revision on January 28, 2011, and in a separate action EPA 

has proposed to approve that SIP revision. See 76 FR 28942 (May 19, 2011). We propose, 

therefore, to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP for Sacramento District with respect to 

element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if Sacramento District’s corrective SIP revision to 

address GHG permitting requirements receives final EPA approval.

Conclusions

The 2007 Transport SIP asserts that California has met the requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit emissions of air pollutants which will interfere with other states’ 

required measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. Given the 2007 Transport SIP provided little information to support this 

assertion, and in light of the time that has passed since its submittal on November 16, 2007, we 

conducted our own evaluation of the current NNSR and PSD programs for each of the 35 

Districts in California. Based on our review, we propose a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 

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

Specifically, with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, we propose to take the following actions. For nine Districts (Antelope Valley 

AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, El Dorado APCD, Imperial County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, 

San Joaquin Valley APCD, South Coast District, Ventura County APCD, and Yolo-Solano 

AQMD) that are designated nonattainment and classified under subpart 2 of part D, title I of the 

CAA and that have SIP-approved NNSR programs meeting the requirements identified above in 

Table 2, we propose to approve the 2007 Transport SIP. For three Districts (Placer, Feather 

River, and Sacramento District) with nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 for which 

NNSR SIP revisions are necessary to meet the requirements identified above in Table 2, we 

propose to approve the 2007 Transport SIP if we finalize approval of those NNSR SIP revisions 

by our July 10, 2011 deadline for final action on element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP. 

Alternatively, if we are unable to finalize approval of the required NNSR SIP revision for any of 

these Districts by our July 10, 2011 deadline, we propose to promulgate a limited NNSR FIP (for 

the relevant area) based on Sacramento District’s Rule 202 (as approved on June 19, 1985, 50 FR 

25417) and the provisions of The Interpretative Rule regulating NOx as an ozone precursor and 

establishing the major source threshold, significant emission rate, and offset ratio applicable to 
17 

the area’s 8-hour classification. EPA would retain authority to implement these requirements at 

the appropriate applicability thresholds (unless and until EPA delegates such authority to the 

District), while the District would retain authority to continue implementing any existing SIPapproved NNSR program. For two Districts (Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego APCD) with 

“former subpart 1” nonattainment areas that implement SIP-approved NNSR programs meeting 

the relevant program requirements listed above in Table 2, we propose to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP. For seven Districts (Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Calaveras 

County APCD, Feather River AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County APCD, and 

Tuolumne County APCD) with “former subpart 1” nonattainment areas that do not yet have SIPapproved NNSR programs, we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine 

that implementation of The Interpretative Rule during this interim period pending EPA’s final 

subpart 2 classifications of these areas adequately addresses the requirements of element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and, therefore, discharges EPA’s obligation to promulgate a FIP for 

these limited purposes. 

For one District (Monterey) that is designated unclassifiable/attainment and that has a SIPapproved PSD program meeting the requirements identified above in Table 2, we propose to 

approve the 2007 Transport SIP. For two Districts (Northern Sonoma and Mendocino) with 

unclassifiable/attainment areas for which we have recently approved PSD SIP revisions by direct 

final rule to meet the requirements identified above in Table 2, we propose to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP. If, however, either of these direct final rules is withdrawn and does not become 

effective by our July 10, 2011 Consent Decree deadline for final action on element (3) of the 

2007 Transport SIP, we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP for the relevant area and 

to promulgate a limited PSD FIP for that area based on the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 

identifying NOx as an ozone precursor. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), and 

(b)(50)(i)(a). EPA would retain authority to implement the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 in the 

relevant area, for NOx emission sources only, unless and until it delegates such authority to the 

District. For one District (North Coast), we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP and to 

promulgate a limited PSD FIP for that area based on the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 identifying 

NOx as an ozone precursor, as discussed above, because we do not expect to approve the 

required PSD SIP revisions by our July 10, 2011 Consent Decree deadline for final action on 

element (3) of the 2007 Transport SIP. EPA would retain authority to implement the 

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 in North Coast, for NOx emission sources only, unless and until it 

delegates such authority to the District. For the rest of the State, which is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and subject to the Federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21, we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine 

that no further action is required to address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because 

EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas. 

With respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, we 

propose to take the following actions. For two Districts (San Joaquin and South Coast District) 
18 

that are designated nonattainment, we propose to approve the 2007 Transport SIP based on a 

determination that implementation of The Interpretative Rule during the SIP-development period 

adequately addresses the requirements of element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). For five 

Districts (Mendocino, Monterey, North Coast, Northern Sonoma, and Sacramento District) that 

are designated unclassifiable/attainment and that have SIP-approved PSD programs meeting the 

requirements identified above in Table 2, we propose to approve the 2007 Transport SIP. For the 

rest of the State, which is designated unclassifiable/attainment and subject to the Federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21, we propose to disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but to determine 

that no further action is required to address element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because 

EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas. 

Finally, with respect to PSD authority to regulate GHGs, we propose to take the following 

actions. For three Districts (Mendocino, North Coast, and Northern Sonoma) that were subject to 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule (75 FR 82536, Dec. 30, 2010), we propose to fully approve the 

2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) based on the 

Districts’ letters clarifying that the 2007 Transport SIP should be read with respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to reflect each of their PSD programs as they are currently federally 

approved as a result of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. For Monterey, which has confirmed that its 

SIP provides GHG PSD permitting authority at thresholds consistent with the Tailoring Rule, we 

propose to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). For Sacramento District, which was subject to the PSD GHG SIP Call (75 FR 

77698, Dec. 13, 2010), we propose to fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP with respect to 

element (3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if Sacramento District’s corrective SIP revision to 

address GHG permitting requirements receives EPA approval. For the rest of the State, which is 

subject to the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, we propose to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP but to determine that no further action is required to address element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas. 
Enclosure A: 

California Nonattainment NSR and PSD Rules for 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 
(This page intentionally left blank.) 
Enclosure A: California Nonattainment NSR and PSD Rules for 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

Table 1. Ozone Nonattainment areas – Subpart 2 areas (8 planning areas in 12 Districts)

Permitting Agency 

Air Quality 

Planning Area

Current 

Classification 

(Original Class)

Major 

Source 

Threshold

Major 

Mod 

Threshold

LAER / 

Offset 

Threshold

Offset 

Ratio

LAER 

Trigger

Offset 

Trigger

Offset 

Ratio

Is NOx an 

Ozone 

precursor? LAER

Offset 

Trigger

Offset 

Ratio

LAER

Rule #

Section

Offset 

Rule #

Section

Adoption 

Date of SIP 

Version

SIP 

Approval 

FR Citation

Antelope Valley AQMD West Mojave Desert Moderate 100 tpy 40 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.15 to 1

0.0 tpy

(Project)

(At MS)

4 tpy

(Source) 1.2 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

1303

 (a)

1303

(b)(2) 5/10/1996 61 FR 64291

Bay Area AQMD 

San Francisco Bay 

Area Air Basin Marginal 100 tpy 40 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.1 to 1

1.8 tpy

(Project)

> 50 tpy

(Source) 1.15 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

2-2

-301.1

2-2

-302 6/15/1994 64 FR 3850

El Dorado County APCD

Sacramento Metro 

(part)

Severe

(Serious) 25tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1

1.8 tpy

(Project)

15 tpy 

(Source)

At least

1.3 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

523.3

(A)

523.3

(B ) 4/26/1994 65 FR 4887

Feather River AQMD

Sacramento Metro 

(part)

Severe

(Serious) 25tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1 NA NA NA NA No No No No Previous Rule included in SIP NA

Imperial County APCD Imperial County

Moderate

(Marginal) 100 tpy 40 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.15 to 1

45.6 tpy

(Project)

45.6 tpy

(Project) 1.2 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

207 

E(1) 

207 

E(2) b 3/17/1980 45 FR 74480

Mojave Desert AQMD West Mojave Desert Moderate 100 tpy 40 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.15 to 1

4.6 tpy

(Project)

25 tpy

(Source) 1.3 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1303 A 1303 B 3/25/1996 61 FR 58133

Placer County APCD

Sacramento Metro 

(part)

Severe

(Serious) 25tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1 NA NA NA NA No No No No Previous Rule included in SIP NA

Placer County APCD

Sacramento Metro 

(Mountain County 

basin)

Severe

(Serious) 25tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1

45.6 tpy

(Project)

45.6 tpy

(Project) 1.2 to 1 No No No No

508

(C)(1)

508

(C)(3) 10/15/1979 46 FR 27115

Sacramento Metro AQMD Sacramento Metro

Severe

(Serious) 25tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1

27.4 tpy

(Project)

45.6 tpy

(Project)

At least 

1.2 to 1 No No No No

Rule 202 

(301)

Rule 202 

(302) 11/20/1984 50 FR 25417

San Joaquin Valley APCD 

San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin

Serious 

(Extreme) 10 tpy 0 tpy

New MS or 

MM

1.5 to 1 0.37 tpy 

(Project)

10 tpy

(Source) 1.5 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

2201

(4.1)

2201

(4.5.3) 12/18/2008 75 FR 26102

South Coast AQMD Coachella Valley 

Severe

(Serious) 25tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1

0.0 tpy

(Project)

(At MS)

4 tpy

(Source) 1.2 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

1303

 (a)

1303

(b) 5/10/1996 61 FR 64291

South Coast AQMD

Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin

Severe 17

(Extreme) 10 tpy 0 tpy

New MS or 

MM

1.2 to 1 

**

0.0 tpy

(Project)

(At MS)

4 tpy

(Source) 1.2 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

1303 

(a)

1303

(b) 5/10/1996 61 FR 64291

Ventura County APCD Ventura County (part)

Moderate 

(Serious) 50 tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.2 to 1

0.0 tpy

(Project)

25 tpy

(Source) 1.3 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

26.2 

(A)

26.2

(B)(2)(d) 3/14/2006 75 FR 1284

Yolo-Solano AQMD

Sacramento Metro 

(part)

Severe

(Serious) 25 tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1

1.8 tpy

(Project)

15 tpy 

(Source)

At least

1.3 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes 301.1 302.1 12/11/1996 62 FR 36214

Table 2. Ozone Nonattainment areas – Subpart 2 areas with Proposed Rulemakings to Correct Deficiencies

Permitting Agency 

Air Quality 

Planning Area

Current 

Classification 

(Original Class)

Major 

Source 

Threshold

Major 

Mod 

Threshold

LAER / 

Offset 

Threshold

Offset 

Ratio

LAER 

Trigger

Offset 

Trigger

Offset 

Ratio

Is NOx an 

Ozone 

precursor? LAER

Offset 

Trigger

Offset 

Ratio

LAER

Rule #

Section

Offset 

Rule #

Section

Adoption 

Date of SIP 

Version

SIP 

Approval 

FR Citation

Feather River AQMD

Sacramento Metro 

(part)

Severe

(Serious) 25 tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1

25 tpy and

1.8 tpy

25 tpy and 

10 tpy

At least

1.3 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

10.1

(E.1)

10.1

(E.2) 10/5/2009

NPRM

76 FR 28944

Placer County APCD

Sacramento Metro 

(part)

Severe

(Serious) 25 tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1 1.8 tpy 10 tpy

At least

1.3 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

502

(302)

502

(303.1) 2/11/2010

NPRM

76 FR 28944

Sacramento Metro AQMD Sacramento Metro

Severe

(Serious) 25 tpy 25 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.3 to 1

0.0 tpy

(Project)

(At MS) 25 tpy

At least

1.3 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

214

(301)

214

(302) 10/28/2010

NPRM

76 FR 28942

Footnotes:

* Where the District rule establishes applicability thresholds for LAER and offsets that differ from the Federal applicability thresholds, we have evaluated the rule to ensure that it is at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. 

** In EPA's 1996 SIP approval action, we approved an offset ratio of 1.2:1 pursuant to CAA Section 182(d)(2).

Federal Requirements (40 CFR 51.165) District Rule Requirements Meets Fed Requirements?* Rule Citations

Federal Requirements (40 CFR 51.165) District Rule Requirements Meets Fed Requirements?* Rule Citations
Table 3. Ozone Nonattainment areas – Former Subpart 1 Areas Which are SIP Approved

Permitting Agency 

Air Quality 

Planning Area

Current 

Classification 

(Original Class)

Major 

Source 

Threshold

Major 

Mod 

Threshold

LAER / 

Offset 

Threshold

Offset 

Ratio

LAER 

Trigger

Offset 

Trigger

Offset 

Ratio

Is NOx an 

Ozone 

precursor? LAER

Offset 

Trigger

Offset 

Ratio

LAER

Rule #

Section

Offset 

Rule #

Section

Adoption 

Date of SIP 

Version

SIP 

Approval 

FR Citation

Eastern Kern APCD Kern Co.

Former 

Subpart 1 100 tpy 40 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.0 to 1 36.5 tpy 36.5 tpy 1.2 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

210.1

(3.C & 5.B)

210.1

(3.C & 5.2) 4/15/1980 46 FR 42460

San Diego County APCD San Diego Co.

Former 

Subpart 1 100 tpy 40 tpy

New MS or 

MM 1.0 to 1 45.6 tpy 45.6 1.2 to 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

20.4

((d))

20.4

((C)) 7/5/1979 46 FR 21757

Table 4. Attainment areas – With SIP Approved PSD Rules or Proposed Rulemakings to Correct Deficiencies

NAAQS

Permitting Agency 

Air Quality 

Planning Area

Classified 

Unclassifiable/ 

Attainment 

NOx is an 

Ozone 

Precursor

Authority to 

Regulate 

PM2.5

Is NOx an 

Ozone 

precursor? 

NOx

Rule #

Section

PM2.5

Rule #

Section

Adoption 

Date of SIP 

Version

SIP 

Approval 

FR Citation

Monterey Bay AQMD Monterey Bay All Applies Applies Yes

207

(2.48)

207

(2.1.2) 9/15/1999 65 FR 5433

Mendocino County AQMD North Coast Air Basin All Applies Applies Yes

130

(p7)

220

((a)(1))

2/15/11

-----------

12/3/1984

Direct Final

76 FR 26192

50FR 30942

Northern Sonoma County 

APCD North Coast Air Basin All Applies Applies Yes

130

(p6)

220

((a)(1))

12/14/10

-----------

3/23/1981

Direct Final

76 FR 26192

47 FR 15785

North Coast Unified AQMD North Coast Air Basin All Applies Applies No NA

220

((a)(1)) 7/10/1984

Limited FIP

50 FR 30941

Sacramento Metro AQMD Sacramento Metro

All except Ozone 

and PM10 NA Applies NA NA

202

(202) 11/20/1984 50 FR 25417

Footnotes:

* Where the District rule establishes applicability thresholds for LAER and offsets that differ from the Federal applicability thresholds, we have evaluated the rule to ensure that it is at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. 

General Note Regarding Rule Citations:

Rules that have been federally approved are available at the following website maintained by EPA, Region 9: www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/index.html (via the link for "California").

Rules cited in Table 2, above, are available in docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0211 at www.regulations.gov.

Rules for which EPA has published a direct final approval that is not yet effective are available in docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0211 at www.regulations.gov.

(i.e., Mendocino County AQMD Rule 130 and Northern Sonoma County APCD Rule 130, cited in Table 4, above)

Yes

PM2.5 is 

Regulated 

Pollutant?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Federal Requirements (40 CFR 51.165) District Rule Requirements Meets Fed Requirements?* Rule Citations

Federal Requirements (40 CFR 51.166) Meets Fed Requirements? Rule Citations
Enclosure B: 

Maps Overlaying Districts, PSD Program Status, and 

Nonattainment Areas in California for 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 
(This page intentionally left blank.) 
Mojave Desert

San Joaquin Valley

Unified

South Coast

Kern

Great Basin Unified

Siskiyou

Bay Area

Lassen

Modoc

Imperial

Shasta

San Diego

Tehama

Butte

Lake

Ventura

Placer

Tuolumne

Glenn

Santa Barbara

El Dorado

North Coast

Unified

Mendocino

Northern

Sierra

Monterey Bay

Unified

San Luis Obispo

Colusa

Mariposa

YoloSolano

Calaveras

Feather

River

Antelope

Valley

Amador

Northern

Sonoma Sacramento

Metro

South Coast

Ventura

Santa Barbara

0 25 50 100 Miles

AIR1100037_1 21 April 2011

Sources: EPA (2011), ESRI (2006), TANA (2006).

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Designations

Nonattainment/Subpart 2/Extreme

Nonattainment/Subpart 2/Severe-17

Nonattainment/Subpart 2/Severe-15

Nonattainment/Subpart 2/Serious

Nonattainment/Subpart 2/Moderate

Nonattainment/Subpart 2/Marginal

Nonattainment/Subpart 1

Attainment/Unclassifiable

PSD Program Status

SIP Approved

EPA Permitting Authority

FIP Delegation

Air District Boundary
(This page intentionally left blank.) 
Mojave Desert

San Joaquin Valley

Unified

South Coast

Kern

Great Basin Unified

Siskiyou

Bay Area

Lassen

Modoc

Imperial

Shasta

San Diego

Tehama

Butte

Lake

Ventura

Placer

Tuolumne

Glenn

Santa Barbara

El Dorado

North Coast

Unified

Mendocino

Northern

Sierra

Monterey Bay

Unified

San Luis Obispo

Colusa

Mariposa

YoloSolano

Calaveras

Feather

River

Antelope

Valley

Amador

Northern

Sonoma Sacramento

Metro

South Coast

Ventura

Santa Barbara

0 25 50 100 Miles

AIR1100037_2 21 April 2011

Sources: EPA (2011), ESRI (2006), TANA (2006).

24-Hour PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations

Nonattainment - 2006 Designation

Nonattainment - 1997 Designation

Attainment/Unclassifiable

PSD Program Status

SIP Approved

EPA Permitting Authority

FIP Delegation

Air District Boundary