California Infrastructure SIP 

Overarching 

Technical Support Document 

Evaluation of California Infrastructure SIPs, excluding CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C)/permit 

programs (only), (D)/interstate transport, (E)(ii)/conflict of interest, (J)/prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) (only), (G)/emergency episode planning, and (L)/permit 

fees

U.S. EPA, Region 9 

September 2014 
1 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... 1

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Background .................................................................................................................................. 4

Guidance....................................................................................................................................... 5

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission Limits and Other Control Measures.............................. 6

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System........................... 11

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) – Program for Enforcement of Control Measures (only) ............... 15

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) – Resources, Authority, and Oversight (only)................................ 18

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F) – Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting.............................. 23

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) – SIP Revisions.............................................................................. 27

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I) – Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas...................................... 28

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation, Public Notification, and Visibility Protection (only)28

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) – Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data .......... 32

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) – Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities............... 33

Summary 

This technical support document (TSD), in combination with four other TSDs, summarizes the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) technical review of revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by California Air Resources Board (“ARB”). These revisions 

pertain to the infrastructure SIP requirements, per Clean Air Act (CAA, or the “Act”) sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2), for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the following national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS): 

· 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS 

· 1997, 2006, and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS 

· 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS 

· 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS 

· 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS 

The infrastructure SIP revisions relevant to this evaluation are as follows:1

· November 16, 2007 – “Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan.” Appendices B (“110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP”) and G (“Legal Authority and Other 

Requirements”) contain California’s infrastructure SIP revision for the 1997 ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS (herein “California’s 2007 Submittal),2

 

1 California made an infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on July 7, 2009 that was subsequently 

withdrawn on July 18, 2014. All infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are addressed in California’s 

2014 Submittal, which is identified in this list, with the exception of the two interstate transport requirements of CAA section 

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

2 California’s November 16, 2007 Submittal is often referred to as California’s 2007 State Strategy. EPA previously acted on 

Appendix C (“Revised Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan”) of California’s 2007 State Strategy, as modified by 

Attachment A of the same submittal, which contained California’s SIP revision to address the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 76 FR 34872, June 15, 2011 and 

76 FR 43175, July 20, 2011 (transport prongs 1 and 2); 76 FR 48002, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 3); and 76 FR 34608, 

June 14, 2011 and 76 FR 43149, July 20, 2011 (transport prong 4). 
2 

o Note: This submittal incorporates by reference California’s “comprehensive [section] 

110(a)(2) SIP submitted in response to the CAA of 1970 and approved by U.S. EPA in 

1979 in 40 CFR 52.220,”3

· October 6, 2011 – “State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Lead Standard Infrastructure 

Requirements,” which addresses the 2008 Pb NAAQS (herein “California’s 2011 Submittal”), 

· December 12, 2012 – “State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide 

Standard Infrastructure Requirements,” which addressed the 2010 NO2 NAAQS (herein 

“California’s 2012 Submittal”), 

· March 6, 2014 – “California Infrastructure SIP,” which provided new submittals for the 2008 

ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and supplemented and amended the state’s prior 

infrastructure SIP submittals listed above (herein “California’s 2014 Submittal”), and 

· June 2, 2014 – Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 701 (“Air 

Pollution Episode Plan”), which addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1987 coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) and 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (herein “Great Basin Rule 

701”). 

Herein, we refer to these submittals collectively as “California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals.” 

California is unique in that much CAA implementation, particularly stationary source regulation, is 

vested with a large number of local air agencies (herein “air districts”) – 35 APCDs and air quality 

management districts (AQMDs) in total.4 Other aspects of CAA implementation are reserved to the 

state, notably mobile source regulation, while others are shared responsibilities, such as ambient air 

quality monitoring. We have reviewed both state and air districts provisions against the various 

infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) to determine the adequacy of California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the California SIP as a whole. 

We are acting on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals in one rulemaking effort, rather than several, 

to the extent that many of the infrastructure SIP requirements apply to all NAAQS (e.g., legal authority 

to implement the Clean Air Act) and to efficiently come current with several outstanding obligations for 

EPA to act on each submittal, as required by CAA section 110(k). We have separated our evaluation 

into five TSDs because of the large volume of information required to evaluate multiple SIP revisions 

for multiple NAAQS in a state with the largest number of local air districts in the country. The TSDs are 

as follows: 

· Overarching TSD – i.e., this document, 

· Permit Programs TSD – addressing CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C)/permit programs (only), 

(D)/interstate transport and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) (only), (J)/PSD (only), 

and (L)/permit fees, 

· Interstate Transport TSD – addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), 

· Conflict of Interest TSD – addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and 

· Emergency Episode Planning TSD – addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). 

Based on our evaluation, we propose a partial approval and partial disapproval of California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals. In general, we also propose that the partial disapprovals will not trigger a 

deadline for EPA to promulgate a comprehensive federal implementation plan (FIP) because many of 

the deficiencies are already adequately addressed by an existing FIP. There are several exceptions to this 

 

3 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 1. 

4 For a map and roster of the 35 air districts, see http://www.arb.ca.gov/capcoa/dismap.htm, and 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/capcoa/roster.htm, respectively. 
3 

general conclusion where our affiliated proposal, if finalized, would trigger the obligation for EPA to 

promulgate FIPs addressing specific deficiencies, as explained in the five TSDs. Our evaluation is 

summarized in the table below. 

Table 1: Summary of EPA Evaluation of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

Element Identification Evaluation 

Elem. SubElem. Description Meets 

Requirement? 

Notes 

A Emission limits and other 

control measures 

Yes 

B i Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system 

(monitor, compile, analyze data) 

Partially Partial disapproval for San Joaquin Valley for 

the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

ii Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system (make 

data available to EPA) 

Yes 

C Program for enforcement of 

control measures and regulation 

of new stationary sources 

Partially Partial disapproval for 28 districts for PSD, 25 

of which are already addressed by PSD FIPs. 

Partial disapproval for 5 districts for minor 

NSR. 

D i Interstate transport (prongs 1-2) Yes (Pb, NO2) There are no interstate transport (prongs 1-2) 

submittals on which EPA may act for the 2006 

PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

Interstate transport (prong 

3/PSD) 

Partially Partial disapproval for 28 districts for PSD, 25 

of which are already addressed by PSD FIPs. 

Interstate transport (prong 

4/visibility) 

Yes 

ii Interstate pollution abatement 

(§126, including requirement to 

notify states of potential impacts 

from new sources) and 

international air pollution (§115) 

Yes 

E i Necessary assurances of 

adequate resources (personnel, 

funding, authority) 

Yes 

ii Conflict of interest provisions 

(per § 128) 

Yes New state laws and regulations to be added to 

the California SIP. 

iii Necessary assurances of 

adequate oversight of local 

governments and regional 

agencies 

Yes 

F i Stationary source monitoring 

system (installation, 

maintenance, replacement) 

Yes 

ii Stationary source monitoring 

system (periodic reports) 

Yes 

iii Stationary source monitoring 

system (correlation of reports 

with emissions limitations or 

standards) 

Yes 
4 

G Emergency episodes Partially New rule for Great Basin Unified APCD to be 

added to the California SIP. 

Partial disapproval for the Mountain Counties 

air quality control region (AQCR) for ozone. 

Partial disapproval for San Joaquin Valley 

AQCR for PM2.5. 

H i SIP revisions (plan revisions for 

NAAQS or improved methods 

of attaining) 

Yes 

ii SIP revisions (remedy 

inadequacies identified by EPA) 

Yes 

I Plan revisions for nonattainment 

areas 

n/a 

J § 121 Consultation with government 

officials 

Yes 

§ 127 Public notification of 

exceedances 

Yes 

PSD/ 

visibility 

PSD and visibility protection Partial Partial disapproval for 28 districts for PSD, 25 

of which are already addressed by PSD FIPs. 

K i Air quality modeling Yes 

ii Submission of modeling data Yes 

L i Permitting fees (reviewing and 

acting on application) 

Yes 

ii Permitting fees (implementing 

and enforcing permit) 

Yes 

M Consultation with/ participation 

by affected local political 

subdivisions 

Yes 

Background 

CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit a plan that provides for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS no later than three years after the promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which generally 

relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control 

measures that constitute the "infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program. A SIP 

submittal addressing these requirements is referred to as an “infrastructure SIP." The NAAQS addressed 

by California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals are summarized in the table below. 

 
5 

Table 2: NAAQS Revisions Addressed by California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 5

Pollutant Signature Date Averaging Period Level Citation 

Ozone 6July 16, 1997 8-hour, 1̊ & 2̊ 0.08 ppm (new) 62 FR 38856, July 18, 

1997 

March 12, 2008 8-hour, 1̊ & 2̊ 0.075 ppm (revised) 73 FR 16436, March 

27, 2008 

PM2.5

7

July 16, 1997 24-hour, 1̊ & 2̊

Annual, 1̊ & 2̊

65 μg/m3 (new) 

15 μg/m3 (new) 

62 FR 38652, July 18, 

1997 

September 21, 2006 24-hour, 1̊ & 2̊

Annual, 1̊ & 2̊

35 μg/m3 (revised)

15 μg/m3(retained) 

71 FR 61144, October 

17, 2006 

December 14, 2012 24-hour, 1̊ & 2̊

Annual, 1̊

Annual, 2̊

35 μg/m3

(retained) 

12.0 μg/m3 (revised) 

15.0 μg/m3(retained) 

78 FR 3086, January 

15, 2013 

Pb 8 October 15, 2008 Rolling 3-month 0.15 μg/m3 (revised) 73 FR 66964, 

November 12, 2008 

NO2

9

January 22, 2010 1-hour, 1̊

Annual, 1̊ & 2̊

100 ppb (new) 

53 ppb (retained) 

75 FR 6474, February 

9, 2010 

SO2

10 June 2, 2010 1-hour, 1̊

3-hour, 2̊

75 ppb (new) 

500 ppb (retained) 

75 FR 35520, June 22, 

2010 

We have evaluated California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals in relation to the infrastructure SIP 

requirements (or “elements”) of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 51.11 In the following pages 

and related TSDs, we describe the requirements, summarize California’s submittals, and present our 

evaluation for each infrastructure SIP element. 

Guidance

EPA has issued several national guidance memos relevant to these NAAQS revisions that have, in 

general, built upon one another successively. The guidance memos relevant to ARB’s development, and 

our evaluation, of California’s infrastructure SIP Submittals are listed in the table below. 

 

5 Key: 1 ̊indicates the primary, health-based standard; 2 ̊indicates the secondary, welfare-based standard; ppm is parts per 

million; ppb is parts per billion; and μg/m3is micrograms per cubic meter. The annual NO2 standard of 0.053 ppm and annual 

SO2 standard of 0.5 ppm are shown in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour standards. In addition, the retained 

standards are shown in italics for reference’s sake only; i.e., only new or revised standards trigger the requirement for states 

to submit infrastructure SIPs, as per CAA section 110(a)(1), while retained standards do not trigger that requirement. 

6 The 1997 ozone NAAQS final rule revoked the 1979 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm). 

7 The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS final rule retained the 1987 coarse particulate matter (PM10) standards, including a 24-hour PM10

standard of 150 μg/m3and an annual PM10 standard of 50 μg/m3. Subsequently, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS final rule retained 

the 24-hour PM10 standard, but revoked the annual PM10 standard, and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS also retained the 24-hour 

PM10 standard. California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals did not address the PM10 standards, except in the case of the state’s 

June 2, 2014 submittal of the emergency episode rule for PM for Great Basin Unified APCD, which includes provisions for 

both PM2.5 and PM10. For this case alone, we reviewed relevant submittal with respect to the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for both PM2.5 and PM10. See our Emergency Episode Planning TSD. 

8 The 2008 Pb NAAQS final rule revised the 1978 Pb standard of 1.5 μg/m3 over a quarterly average to its current averaging 

period and level. 

9 The 2010 NO2 NAAQS revised the primary 1971 standard by supplementing the existing annual standard with a new 1-hour 

standard. It also retained the secondary annual standard. 

10 The 2010 SO2 NAAQS retained the secondary 3-hour standard and established a mechanism for revoking the primary 1971 

annual and 24-hour SO2 standards. 

11 Two section 110(a)(2) requirements are considered by EPA to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP actions because 

they pertain to plan requirements for nonattainment areas: (1) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs 

under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) in its entirety. Therefore, we did not evaluate these requirements. 
6 

Table 3: EPA National Guidance Memos on CAA Section 110(a)(2) Requirements 

Date 

Issued or 

Released 

NAAQS 

Addressed 

Section 110(a)(2) 

Requirements 

Addressed 

Title TSD Abbreviation 

March 2, 

1978 

All Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

referring to section 

128/ conflict of 

interest 

Memorandum from David O. Bickart, 

Deputy General Counsel, Office of 

General Counsel (OGC), “Guidance to 

States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128” 

1978 Conflict of 

Interest Guidance 

August 15, 

2006 

1997 ozone 

and 1997 

PM2.5

Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)/ 

interstate transport 

“prongs 1-4” 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), “Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan 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” 

2006 Transport SIP 

Guidance 

October 2, 

2007 

1997 ozone 

and 1997 

PM2.5

All, though relying 

on 2006 Transport 

SIP Guidance for 

section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)/ 

interstate transport 

“prongs 1-4” 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 

OAQPS, “Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards” 

2007 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance 

September 

25, 2009 

2006 PM2.5 All, with specific 

guidance for 

sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)/ 

interstate transport 

“prongs 1-4” and 

section 

110(a)(2)(G)/ 

emergency episode 

planning 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 

OAQPS, “Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards” 

2009 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance 

October 14, 

2011 

2008 Pb All Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, OAQPS, “Guidance on State 

Implementation Plan Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards” 

2011 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance 

September 

13, 2013 

2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2, 

2012 PM2.5, 

and future 

NAAQS 

All, except section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)/ 

interstate transport 

“prongs 1-2” 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, OAQPS, “Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” 

2013 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) – Emission Limits and Other Control Measures 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and 

auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.” 
7 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal describes the regulation of emission sources as a three partner effort in 

California involving federal, state, and local government. For the federal government’s part, the 

submittal states that “EPA is authorized and directed to adopt measures to control emissions from 

various sources, such as consumer products, motor vehicles, nonroad engines and vehicles, and aircraft 

(CAA [sections] 183(e)(3), 202, 213 and 231)” and “to intervene with direct federal action if the SIP is 

inadequate.”12 For the state and local levels, California employs state and local agencies to regulate air 

pollution sources, including ARB, the Bureau of Automotive Repair in the Department of Consumer 

Affairs, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the 35 local air districts. We summarize 

California’s explanation of the state and local authorities for such air pollution regulation in our 

evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) below. 

California’s 2007 Submittal asserts that these authorities have been the basis of numerous air pollution 

control rules and that the broader 2007 submittal, often referred to as California’s 2007 State Strategy, 

was “designed to reduce emissions from onroad mobile sources (passenger vehicles and trucks), off-road 

mobile sources (agricultural equipment, construction equipment, and other off-road sources), goods 

movement sources, and areawide sources (consumer products and pesticides).”13

The infrastructure SIP portion of the submittal discusses regulation of a wide range of mobile sources, 

marine vessels, vehicular inspection and maintenance (i.e., Smog Check), fuels, consumer products, 

gasoline vapor recovery, and pesticides.14 These regulations target emissions of ozone precursor 

pollutants and PM2.5 and its precursors. 

California’s 2011 Submittal credits the removal of Pb from gasoline with over 99% reductions in the 

maximum monthly average Pb levels at ambient population-oriented monitors from the mid-1970s 

(about 10 μg/m3) to 2011 (0.04 μg/m3 or less – well below the 2008 Pb NAAQS level of 0.15 μg/m3 

based on a rolling 3-month average).15 The submittal specifically cites California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), title 13, section 2253.4 as setting a limit of 0.05 grams per gallon that was later adopted in the 

CAA Amendments of 1990.16 The submittal asserts that the state and federal provisions to eliminate Pb 

in motor fuel will provide for ongoing attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, except in 

the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin, which has been designated as 

nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

California’s 2011 Submittal states that the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin is 

impacted by stationary Pb sources within the area. The submittal then cites two rules specifically 

adopted to address emissions from such stationary sources: South Coast Rule 1420, which specifies 

requirements for emission limits, controls, monitoring, modeling, recordkeeping, and reporting for all 

 

12 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix G, p. 1. 

13 Id. pp. 2-3. Note, however, that California’s 2007 State Strategy, which includes the infrastructure SIP submittal for CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), was primarily developed to address the requirements of CAA Title I, part D for areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, our evaluation for purposes of this TSD and 

rulemaking on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals is limited to the general emission limitations and other measures in 

the California SIP. We have addressed the emission limitations designed for nonattainment areas in separate rulemakings 

such as our final rule on provisions of California’s 2007 State Strategy and other submittals related to the Los Angeles-South 

Coast ozone nonattainment area. 76 FR 69928, November 9, 2011. 

14 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix G, pp. 3-9. 

15 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-1. 

16 For further information on CAA section 211(n) and EPA’s direct final rule to limit Pb content in gasoline, see 61 FR 3832, 

February 2, 1996. 
8 

facilities that process Pb-containing materials; and South Coast Rule 1420.1, which applies to large Pbacid battery recycling facilities. 

California’s 2014 Submittal presents a broader picture of emission limitations and their effect on air 

quality, and provides additional examples of SIP-approved emission control measures. It states that 

ARB and the air districts’ long, comprehensive, and effective history of developing, implementing, and 

enforcing control measures and programs has resulted in significant improvements to air quality. It 

claims that California meets the NO2, SO2, and carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS and further asserts that 

continued implementation and enforcement of control measures will continue to move California 

towards attainment of the other NAAQS state-wide.17

Starting with mobile sources, the submittal states that its tight motor vehicle and fuel standards, in-use 

rules, and inspection programs such as Smog Check and heavy-duty truck inspections have resulted in 

cars and trucks that are 99% and 98% cleaner, respectively, than their uncontrolled counterparts. It 

echoes this claim with respect to emission standards for off-road sources and states that ARB has 

collaborated with EPA to regulate sources subject to a combination of state and federal authority, as 

exemplified by locomotive engine standards and low-sulfur diesel fuel standards for near-shore ships. 

With respect to stationary sources and small local businesses, the submittal states that emission limits 

are achieved through a combination of prohibitory rules establishing emission limits by facility type, 

permits specifying equipment use and operating parameters, and preconstruction permit programs that 

allow industrial growth while offsetting emissions. Examples of facilities regulated under such district 

programs include “refineries, manufacturing facilities, cement plants, refinishing operations, electrical 

generation and biomass facilities, boilers, and generators.”18 The submittal then provides examples of 

SIP-approved emission control measures for volatile organic compounds (VOCs; listed as hydrocarbons, 

or HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), CO, Pb, and sulfur oxides (SOx).19 These 

examples are discussed further in our evaluation section below. 

EPA’s evaluation 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals describe a broad array of emission limitations employed by 

the state and air districts to achieve emission reductions that will help areas within the state attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. While the examples of specific SIP-approved emission limits and other control 

measures discussed in the submittals and in this TSD are not exhaustive, we propose that they, along 

with the hundreds of other SIP-approved California state and district requirements that they represent, 

provide an adequate basis to conclude that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals meet the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), as discussed below. 

The state’s submittals present information on emission limits in three overarching source sectors: mobile 

sources, area sources, and stationary sources. Also, note that California’s 2007 Submittal addresses the 

federal government’s role in setting emission limits from mobile sources. While federal emission limits 

are important to help areas across the nation meet and maintain the NAAQS, we have evaluated 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals on the basis of California’s state and air district provisions to 

limit emission of NAAQS pollutants, and their precursor pollutants, treated by this TSD. 

 

17 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 5. 

18 Id., p. 6. 

19 Id., p. 7, Table 3. Note that California’s earlier submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS did not directly discuss emission 

limitations (see California’s 2012 Submittal, p. 2, footnote to Table 1), but California’s 2014 Submittal does so for NO2. 
9 

A state regulation, CCR title 13, section 2253.4 (“Lead in Gasoline”), sets a limit of 0.05 grams per 

gallon of gasoline and applies statewide. It was approved into the California SIP20 and serves an 

important emission limitation role that is addressed in other states by the federal CAA itself. By contrast, 

South Coast Rule 1420.1 was developed to address a problematic source type (Pb-acid battery recycling 

facilities) in the Los Angeles County Pb nonattainment area and was submitted and approved21 as a core 

part of the attainment plan for that area. This rule is supportive of section 110(a)(2)(A) but is not 

necessary in itself for approval of section 110(a)(2)(A) since it was developed as part of a nonattainment 

area control strategy that is subject to separate deadline requirements under the CAA. As California’s 

2014 Submittal cites both SIP-approved regulations, we proposed to find that they are adequate for 

purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) to maintain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

In evaluating the state’s submittals with respect to the ozone, PM2.5, NO2, and SO2 NAAQS, we note 

that provisions that limit emissions of NOx, SOx, and VOCs can play overlapping roles. In other words, 

NOx emission limits serve to reduce levels of NO2 and to reduce ozone and PM2.5 levels since NOx

emissions are precursors to the secondary formation of ozone and PM2.5 in the atmosphere. The same 

holds true for SOx emissions with respect to reducing levels of SO2 and PM2.5 levels since SOx

emissions are precursors to PM2.5, and for VOC emissions with respect to reducing levels of ozone and 

in some cases PM2.5. California has adopted extensive provisions to limit emissions of NOx, SOx, VOCs, 

and PM emitted directly from sources (direct PM) in both areas not meeting one or more of the NAAQS 

and in areas meeting all of these NAAQS. We discuss below the three overarching source categories 

(i.e., mobile, area, and stationary) that limit emissions of NOx, SOx, VOCs and direct PM in the state. 

For mobile sources, California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals refer to the regulatory programs of ARB 

and the Bureau of Automotive Repair, which include the following SIP-approved provisions cited in 

California’s 2014 Submittal22 as well as additional provisions in the California SIP:23

· 13 CCR 1956.8 (“Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test Procedures – 1985 & Subsequent 

Model Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles”), which sets limits for NOx, VOCs, direct PM, and 

CO from heavy-duty engines and vehicles, 

· 13 CCR 1961 (“Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test Procedures – 2004 & Subsequent Model 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles”), which sets low emission 

vehicle (LEV) standards, including emission limits for NOx, VOCs (as non-methane organic 

gases, or NMOG), direct PM, and CO from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty 

vehicles, 

· 13 CCR 2250-2297 (California reformulated gasoline regulations), which set fuel standards that 

reduce the emission of NOx, SOx, VOCs, direct PM, and CO by affecting how cleanly gasoline 

burns, including standards for sulfur content, aromatic hydrocarbon (a kind of VOC) content, 

oxygenation, etc., 

· 13 CCR 2281 (“Sulfur Content of Diesel Fuel”), which limits emissions of SOx by setting a 

sulfur limit of 15 ppm for vehicular diesel fuels used since June 2006, 

· Various provisions under California Administrative Code, Title 16 (“Professional and Vocational 

Regulations”), sections 3303.1 through 3394.6, which embody California’s inspection and 

maintenance program (i.e., Smog Check) that sets limits for NOx and VOC emissions from 

 

20 75 FR 26653, May 12, 2010. 

21 78 FR 5305, January 25, 2013. 

22 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 7, Table 3. 

23 SIP-approved versions of California’s mobile source emission regulations are available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&count=500&state=California&cat=Air+Resources+Board-AgencyWide+Provisions.
10 

passenger vehicles in 34 of California’s 58 counties and requires periodic emissions testing 

therein, 

· Various provisions under CCR, Title 13 (“Motor Vehicles”), which set engine exhaust limits for 

NOx, VOCs, and CO, and fuel standards. For example, 13 CCR 2282 (“Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

Content of Diesel Fuel”) limits the percentage of aromatic hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel by 

volume, and 

· Bay Area AQMD Rule 9-01 (“Sulfur Dioxide”), which sets SOx emission standards for ships, 

fuel burning, and a variety of industrial plants. 

For area sources, California’s 2014 Submittal provides an example of a SIP-approved rule for consumer 

products,24 which was developed and adopted by ARB, and generally references its pesticide rules, 

which are developed and adopted by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. It also provides examples 

of area source rules adopted by the air districts.25 Examples of SIP-approved measures for consumer 

products, pesticides, and petroleum product handling (limiting emission of VOCs), and fugitive dust and 

burning (limiting emission of PM, and direct PM and NOx, respectively), include the following:26

· 17 CCR Subchapter 8.5, Article 1 (“Antiperspirants and Deodorants”), which sets emission 

limits for high and medium volatility organic compounds, 

· 17 CCR Subchapter 8.5, Article 2 (“Consumer Products”), which sets emission limits for VOCs 

from a wide array of consumer products such as adhesives, kitchen and bath products, beauty 

products, cleaning products, insect repellants, automotive products, etc., 

· 17 CCR Subchapter 8.5, Article 3 (“Aerosol Coating Products”), which set VOC emission limits 

from a wide range of general and specialty coating products, and 

· Various provisions under CCR, Title 3 (“Food and Agriculture”), which limit the emission of 

VOCs from pesticides by regulating fumigation methods and by setting fumigant VOC emission 

limits. Note, however, that some of these provisions are targeted at VOC emissions within ozone 

nonattainment areas, and are thus supportive, but not necessary, for meeting CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), 

· Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 403.1 (“Fugitive Dust Control for the Searles Valley Planning 

Area”), which sets requirements to limit fugitive dust emissions (i.e., PM10, which includes 

PM2.5) from construction sites, industrial sites, activities on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

land, and disturbed surfaces on public land, 

· Sacramento Metro AQMD Rule 449 (“Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks”), which 

sets limits to the emissions of gasoline vapor (i.e., VOCs), 

· Sacramento Metro AQMD Rule 501 (“Agricultural Burning”), which establishes “conditions 

under which agricultural burning may occur,” which serves to minimize emissions of PM, 

· San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4402 (“Crude Oil Sumps”), which sets limits for VOCs 

emissions from such sumps, 

· San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 8081 (“Agricultural Sources”), which sets requirements to limit 

fugitive dust emissions from such sources, and 

· South Coast AQMD Rule 444 (“Open Burning”), which sets requirement for open burning to 

minimize emissions and smoke (i.e., including PM). 

 

24 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 7, Table 3. 

25 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 7, Table 3. Note, however, that some of these area source prohibitory rules are 

targeted at emissions within nonattainment areas, and are thus supportive, but not necessary, for meeting CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

26 SIP-approved versions of California’s consumer product and pesticide regulations are available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&count=500&state=California&cat=Air+Resources+Board-AgencyWide+Provisions. SIP-approved versions of California’s area source prohibitory rules for each air district are available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&count=100&state=California. 
11 

For stationary sources and other area sources, California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals refer to the 

stationary source programs of the state’s 35 air districts, which include prohibitory rules to limit 

emissions and operating and preconstruction permit programs that incorporate emission limits in the 

permits issued to a given source. It is impractical to list all such rules here given their large number. For 

instance, Bay Area AQMD has over 60 area and stationary source prohibitory rules that have been 

approved into the California SIP. Note that the federally-approved Title V operating permit programs for 

each air district are not, as a general matter, submitted for approval into the California SIP. For 

discussion of California’s SIP-approved preconstruction permit programs (i.e., programs for PSD, 

nonattainment new source review (NSR), and minor NSR), please refer to our Permit Programs TSD, 

which accompanies this TSD. 

In sum, the state and local emission limit provisions in the California SIP, including those cited by 

California’s 2014 Submittal, for mobile, area, and stationary sources address a wide variety of sources 

and are extensive. The NOx and VOC emission limits serve to limit ambient ozone concentrations, 

which will help all areas in the state attain and maintain the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS.. The 

same is true for the NOx, SOx, VOC, and direct PM emission limits, which serve to limit the creation of 

PM2.5 and which will help areas attain and maintain the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. Lastly, the NOx and SOx emission limits also serve to limit the ambient air concentrations of 

NO2 and SO2, respectively. 

We propose to find that the SIP-approved emission limits discussed in California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals and in this TSD provide an adequate basis to conclude that California meets the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, 

methods, systems, and procedures necessary to—(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air 

quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.” 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal states that ARB and the air districts operate an extensive air quality 

monitoring network for ozone and PM2.5 and that they compile, analyze, and report such data to EPA.27

It describes, in general terms, the state’s combination of PM2.5 continuous monitors and filter-based 

monitors and notes that data can be accessed from the Aerometric Data Analysis and Management 

(ADAM, for historical data: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/) and the Air Quality and Meteorological 

Information System (AQMIS, for real-time data: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqmis2.php). The 

submittal includes several links to websites on the state’s monitoring programs and reports and a 

commitment to continue to monitor, compile, and report air quality data in compliance with EPA 

requirements.28

California’s 2011 Submittal asserts that California’s network of existing and planned Pb monitors and 

data reporting to EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) comply with federal population and source-oriented 

monitoring requirements.29 This network is operated by ARB and the relevant air districts and includes 

required Pb monitors at six “National Core” (NCore) sites and four additional population-oriented 

 

27 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 2. 

28 See e.g., ARB’s website for ambient air quality monitoring: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/aaqm.htm.

29 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-2. 
12 

sites.30 It describes a pilot program for monitoring Pb emissions from certain general aviation airports, 

which involves the collaboration of EPA, ARB, the relevant air districts, and the airports themselves.31 It 

also references websites where information about the state’s monitoring network 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/aqmoninca.htm) and air quality data can be viewed and refers to the annual 

monitoring network plans (ANPs) that ARB and districts submit to EPA to describe the state’s 

compliance with the monitoring requirements and any proposed network changes. 

California’s 2012 Submittal notes that NO2 monitors are required for population and near-roadwayoriented monitoring in urban areas, defined as core based statistical (CBSAs), with 500,000 or more 

people.32 It states that California’s monitoring network includes more than 80 community-wide NO2

monitors, including those that are federally required for CBSAs with one million or more people. It also 

indicates that ARB is working with air districts and EPA for up to 15 new near-roadway monitors to be 

deployed in phases from 2014 through 2017 and that a subset of these monitoring sites will also house 

CO monitors in the near future.33 The submittal also reiterates the prior submittal’s statement that the 

data collected at established monitors are compiled, analyzed, and reported to AQS as per the schedule 

set by federal regulations. 

California’s 2014 Submittal discusses the underlying authority for air quality monitoring and builds 

upon the prior infrastructure SIP submittals by further describing the pollutant-specific monitoring 

conducted by ARB and the air districts.34 It cites California Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 

39602 as providing overarching SIP authority to ARB, including authority to ensure adequate ambient 

air monitoring and to submit the resulting data to EPA, consistent with federal requirements. HSC 

sections 39607(a) and (c), in turn, provide specific authority for ARB to establish air quality and air 

pollution monitoring along with the air districts and other agencies. The submittal states that ARB has 

used this authority, in cooperation with the air districts, private contractors, and other governmental 

entities to establish a network of over 650 monitors at over 250 sites, which address the on-going and 

new federal monitoring requirements and often exceed those requirements. 

This network includes NCore, chemical speciation, special purpose, and photochemical assessment 

monitoring sites. The submittal asserts that those monitors that are established as federal reference or 

federal equivalent monitors meet EPA’s methodological and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR 

part 58, Appendix A and the siting requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix E, and that the resulting 

data are submitted to AQS according to the schedule prescribed in 40 CFR part 58.35 California submits 

13 ANPs that present an evaluation of the adequacy of the monitoring network, with a more thorough 

review being conducted every five years. The ANPs are submitted by the following Primary Quality 

Assurance Organizations (PQAOs): 

· Twelve air districts: Bay Area, Great Basin Unified, Imperial, Monterey Bay Unified, North 

Coast Unified, Sacramento Metropolitan, San Diego County, Santa Barbara County, San Joaquin 

Valley, San Luis Obispo County, South Coast, and Ventura County, and 

· ARB (for the remaining 23 air districts). 

As described in the submittal, the reports describe proposed changes to the monitoring network, 

including additions, relocations, and terminations. The submittal notes that the network is adequate for 

 

30 Id., p. A-3. Table A-1 provides a listing and location of the federally required monitors in California for Pb. 

31 Id.

32 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-1. 

33 Id., p. A-2. Table A-1 provides a listing and location of the federally required monitors in California for NO2. 

34 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 8. 

35 Id., p. 9. 
13 

most of California’s many CBSAs, while noting that ARB and San Joaquin Valley APCD are assessing 

the monitoring needs of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) following changes to the 

monitoring network therein. 

With respect to new monitoring requirements, California’s 2014 Submittal states that the required Pb 

monitor at the Sacramento-Del Paso Manor NCore site was deployed and operational as of April 1, 

2012.36 Also, the 1-year monitoring study that required monitoring at five general aviation airports in the 

state found that the San Carlos and McClellan-Palomar airports showed Pb concentrations above the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. The submittal states that any airport measuring greater than half the level of the 2008 

Pb NAAQS will continue to monitor Pb after the conclusion of the 1-year monitoring study. With 

respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, ARB provides an update on the likely location of near-roadway 

monitors37 and notes that EPA is working with California to identify seven additional monitors aimed at 

measuring NO2 levels in susceptible and vulnerable communities, five of which are currently deployed. 

Regarding the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the submittal states that “California meets or exceeds the minimum 

requirements for PM2.5 monitors at NCore sites and in CBSAs with a population of 50,000 or more,” and 

that ARB and the air districts will work with EPA to determine appropriate locations for new nearroadway PM2.5 monitors.38 Lastly, for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, California’s 2014 Submittal states that 

California operates SO2 monitors at each of its seven NCore sites and that California already exceeds the 

number of SO2 monitors required on the basis of a Population Weighted Emission Index (PWEI) for 

each CBSA.39

EPA’s evaluation 

California is required to operate a large number of regulatory monitors and, as noted in its submittals, 

often exceeds the minimum monitoring requirements. ARB and the air districts have established and 

operate air quality monitors to measure ambient concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and SO2 for 

the NAAQS treated by this TSD and collaborate with respect to the compilation, analysis, and submittal 

of the acquired monitoring data. California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals and ANPs provide an 

adequate basis for EPA to propose approval with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B), with the 

exception of the Bakersfield MSA for ozone monitoring. 

As noted in EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, a state should identify the provisions that provide 

authority to monitor air quality and include an explanation or narrative about how the state meets the 

various federal regulatory requirements to monitor air quality (40 CFR parts 53 and 58), submit data to 

EPA (40 CFR 58.16 (“Data submittal and archiving requirements”)), submit ANPs (40 CFR 58.10), and 

obtain EPA approval of planned changes to the monitoring network (40 CFR 58.14).40 California’s 2014 

Submittal cites HSC section 39602, for overarching SIP authority, and HSC sections 39607(a) and (c), 

for specific authority to establish air quality monitoring with the air districts.41 We propose to find that 

these provisions provide adequate authority to monitor ambient air quality for purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) with respect to each of the NAAQS treated by this TSD. 

With respect to California’s compliance with the federal regulatory requirements relevant for section 

110(a)(2)(B), we reviewed California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals in conjunction with California’s 

 

36 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 10. 

37 Id., p. 11, Table 4. 

38 Id., p 12. 

39 Id., p. 12, Table 5. 

40 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, pp. 22-23. 

41 Copies of HSC Sections 39602 and 39607(a) and (c) appear in California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Attachment 1. 
14 

2013 ANPs and EPA response letters to those plans.42 We summarize our evaluation of California’s 

ambient air monitoring network for ozone and then for the other NAAQS pollutants treated by this TSD 

(i.e., PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and SO2). Our discussion of the issue with respect to ozone monitoring in the 

Bakersfield MSA within San Joaquin Valley AQMD is included in our evaluation summary for ozone. 

As described in California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, ARB maintains a website about the state’s 

monitoring network and website databases of both historic (i.e., ADAM) and real-time (i.e., AQMIS) 

ambient air quality data. Furthermore, we concur with California’s statements that they have provided 

for submittal of such data to EPA via AQS according to the submittal and timing requirements of 40 

CFR 58.16. Thus, we propose to find that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals meet the data 

submission requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B)(ii). 

For each pollutant, California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals and, in particular, California’s 2014 

Submittal, describe the current monitoring network and the planned additions to meet new monitoring 

requirements stemming from the various NAAQS revisions. 

Ozone 

California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals state rather little with respect to ozone monitoring other than 

broader statements about the state’s extensive monitoring network. Details of ARB and the air districts’ 

ozone monitoring network are presented in the 2013 annual monitoring network reports and EPA’s 

response letters, which indicate that California broadly meets the ozone monitoring requirements, with 

one exception. 

As stated in EPA’s response letter to San Joaquin Valley APCD’s 2013 ANP, EPA disapproved the San 

Joaquin Valley monitoring network for the requirement for a maximum ozone concentration monitor in 

the Bakersfield MSA.43 Specifically, 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires that “within an 

[ozone] network, at least one [ozone] site for each MSA,... must be designated to record the maximum 

concentration for that particular metropolitan area” and 40 CFR 58.14(b) requires that “modifications to 

the [State and Local Air Monitoring Station] network for reasons other than those resulting from the 

periodic network assessments... must be reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator.” On 

November 4, 2010, the ozone monitor located at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Road site [AQS ID: 06-029-

5001], which had been the maximum ozone concentration monitor in the Bakersfield MSA, was closed 

without an approved replacement site. Following parallel monitoring conducted between MayNovember 2010 at both Arvin-Bear Mountain and Arvin-DiGiorgio, ARB established a permanent 

monitor at the Arvin-DiGiorgio site [AQS ID: 06-029-5002] that is intended to replace the Arvin-Bear 

Mountain Road monitor. During the period of parallel monitoring the DiGiorgio site read lower than the 

Bear Mountain Road site and is still under evaluation by EPA as an acceptable replacement site. 

Thus, while we propose to partially approve California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals with respect to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS, including 

most of San Joaquin Valley APCD, we also propose to partially disapprove these submittals for the 

 

42 California’s 2013 ANPs and EPA’s response letters are listed by date in the docket of the proposed rule for which this TSD 

is written. Note: There are some limited exceptions explained in our response letters where EPA took no action. However, we 

do not deem these exceptions to disturb our general conclusion that California’s 13 PQAOs operate an appropriate 

monitoring network to monitor, compile, and analyze ambient air quality. 

43 Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9 to Samir Sheik, Director of Strategies 

and Incentives, San Joaquin Valley APCD, dated May 8, 2014, p. 1 and Enclosure C. 
15 

Bakersfield MSA with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) for the 1997 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. If finalized, this partial disapproval will trigger the obligation for EPA to promulgate a 

FIP within two years. EPA, ARB, and San Joaquin Valley APCD continue to work on this important 

ozone monitoring issue with the goal of resolving it prior to the expiration of such a FIP deadline and to 

resolve the rulemaking uncertainty on the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area plans. 

PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and SO2

As California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals note, California operates PM2.5 monitors at its seven NCore 

sites and at sites in CBSAs with 50,000 or more people, as required by 40 CFR Part 58. California is 

also in the process of determining locations for new near-roadway PM2.5 monitors that became required 

by the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Per California’s 2011 and 2014 Submittals, California operates the required Pb monitors at its six urban 

NCore sites. California also intends to continue Pb monitoring at any of its five general aviation airports 

if they record Pb levels above half the 2008 Pb NAAQS. California operates source-oriented Pb 

monitors as required by the Pb monitoring regulations. These include monitors near the Exide 

Technologies and Quemetco facilities in the Los Angeles County Pb nonattainment area. 

Similarly, California’s 2011 and 2014 Submittals and 2013 ANPs correctly indicate that California has 

established and operates sufficient numbers of NO2 monitors to meet the federal requirements for areawide monitoring in CBSAs with one million or more people, is in the process of establishing nearroadway monitors for CBSAs with 500,000 or more people, and has deployed five of seven additional 

monitors for measuring NO2 levels in susceptible and vulnerable communities. 

Lastly, California’s 2014 Submittal and 2013 ANPs indicate that California operates the required SO2

monitors at each of its NCore sites and has established and operates more than the required number of 

SO2 monitors based on the PWEI for each of its CBSAs. 

In sum, based on our review of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, California’s 2013 ANPs, and 

EPA’s response letters to those ANPs, we propose to find that California has established and operates an 

adequate network of PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and SO2 ambient air quality monitors for purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B)(i). Thus, we propose to approve California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for this CAA 

requirement with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) – Program for Enforcement of Control Measures (only) 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that each SIP “include a program to provide for the enforcement of the 

measures described in [section 110(a)(2)(A)], and regulation of the modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are 

achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D [of title I of the Act].” 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of control measures, EPA evaluated the state’s general enforcement authorities to 

determine whether they adequately provide for SIP enforcement statewide. 

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for regulation of 

the modification and construction of stationary sources, please refer to our Permit Programs TSD, which 

accompanies this TSD. 
16 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal notes that ARB’s enforcement program “covers mobile and stationary 

sources, consumer products, and fuels” and that ARB audits and reviews the air districts’ programs 

consistent with HSC section 41500 and reviews district rules during their development to ensure that 

they meet applicable state and federal requirements.44 ARB commits to continue enforcing its control 

measures and overseeing the air districts enforcement programs. The submittal also cites the various 

authorities that underpin the “tiered system of authority for enforcement... which parallels the authority 

to develop and implement the SIP.”45 With respect to oversight of local air districts, the submittal asserts 

that “if ARB finds that a district is not taking reasonable action to enforce applicable air pollution 

control statutes, rules and regulations, ARB may, after a public hearing, assume the district's 

enforcement powers and enforce these laws ([HSC section] 41505).”46

California’s 2011 and 2012 Submittals cite additional HSC authorities (i.e., sections 40001, 40120, 

40702, 40752, 40753, and 41510) that grant air district officers and employees authority to enforce rules 

and regulations and reiterates ARB’s authority to review and audit the air districts’ enforcement 

programs pursuant to HSC section 41500.47 California’s 2014 Submittal cites HSC section 40000 as 

granting air districts control over stationary source monitoring, which includes authority to enforce 

district rules and regulations.48

EPA’s evaluation 

The authorities cited in California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals apply to all NAAQS (i.e., they are not 

limited to the NAAQS addressed by a given infrastructure SIP submittal) and they grant ARB and the 

air districts broad authority to enforce the state’s clean air regulations, including those discussed in our 

evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). In addition to reviewing the HSC statutory authorities, we 

reviewed the California SIP for the SIP-approved regulations that implement such enforcement 

authorities, consistent with EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance.49 The examples of specific SIPapproved enforcement provisions discussed in this TSD are not comprehensive, though they are 

adequately representative. Therefore, we propose to find that the HSC enforcement statutes and the SIPapproved enforcement regulations provide an adequate basis to conclude that California meets the 

requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for a program of enforcement of control measures, as 

discussed below. 

Statutory Enforcement Provisions 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals cite various state laws as providing authority to enforce the 

states emission controls.50 Under HSC section 40000, the authority for mobile source regulation is 

reserved to ARB while air districts and regional authorities have primary responsibility for air pollution 

 

44 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 2. 

45 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix G, p. 2. “ARB has authority to enforce vehicular controls. (See, e.g., §§41510, 

41511 and 41513, 43012, 43016 and 43017, 43100, 43105, 43106, 43204-43212 and Vehicle Code §§27156, 38390 and 

38391.) Primary responsibility for non-vehicular enforcement is vested in the local air districts. (See, e.g., §§41510, 41511 

and 41513, and 42300 et seq.)” 

46 Id. 

47 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-4; and California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, pp. A-3 to 

A-4. 

48 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 13. 

49 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 24. 

50 Copies of the HSC Sections 41510, 41511, and 40001(a) appear in California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Attachment 1. 

Other HSC provisions cited are available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc. California 

Vehicular Code provisions area available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/veh_table_of_contents.html. 
17 

control activities for all other sources (e.g., stationary sources). With respect to vehicular emission 

controls, HSC section 43012 grants the ARB Executive Officer and his or her representative the right to 

enter new and used car dealerships to verify compliance with new motor vehicle and engine standards, 

while sections 43016 and 43017 grant ARB authority to apply civil penalties for violations of vehicular 

emission control rules and to enjoin such violations, respectively. Towards similar ends, section 43212 

provides for civic penalties for manufacturers whose vehicles do not comply with emission control 

standards or procedures and California Vehicle Code 27516 provides for fines for the tampering or 

removal of required exhaust control devices. 

For stationary sources, the air districts are primarily responsible for enforcing the applicable rules and 

regulations while ARB provides oversight and can take over a district enforcement program under 

certain conditions. HSC section 40001 requires districts to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to 

achieve and maintain the state and federal air quality standards and section 40752 requires the air district 

control officers to observe and enforce rules, regulations, and permit conditions and even, per section 

40753, certain provisions of California’s Vehicular Code. HSC section 41510 grants authority to the 

ARB Executive Officer, the air district control officers, and their representatives to enter the premises of 

air pollution sources for purposes of inspection and securing samples or required records. Section 41513 

provides for civil action to enjoin violations of the districts’ stationary source rules. HSC section 

42300.1, in turn, requires post-construction enforcement procedures for districts that issue consolidated 

permits to ensure permitted sources are built and operated as required by such consolidated permit. 

We have also considered the HSC provisions cited in California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). For instance, 

HSC section 42450 and 42451 authorize district boards and district hearing boards, respectively, to issue 

abatement orders for sources that discharge air contaminants that endanger the public health and safety. 

Similarly, section 42301.7 authorizes the air district control officers to issue orders to prevent or 

mitigate the release of air contaminants that may cause injury at or near schools, as reasonably 

necessary. More broadly, HSC section 42400, et seq. provides the authority and mechanisms for issuing 

criminal and civil penalties, sanctions, imposition of fines, and filing injunctions related to a wide 

variety of air pollution and documentation offenses. For further discussion of these provisions, please 

refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD, which accompanies this TSD. 

Regulatory Enforcement Provisions 

Regarding enforcement regulations, we provide examples for the state and local levels that address 

mobile, area, and stationary source emission limits. At the state level, the following SIP-approved 

regulations are part of the state’s program for enforcement of mobile source and pesticide emission limit 

regulations:51

· Various provisions under the section 3340 series of California Administrative Code (CAC), Title 

16 (“Professional and Vocational Regulations”) provide for enforcement of the Smog Check 

program by, for example, setting mandatory inspection and test procedures for Smog Check 

service stations, procedures for certification of such service stations, and fleet record and 

reporting requirements, 

· 13 CCR sections 2262.3, 2262.4, and 2262.5, which set compliance requirements with respect to 

California’s reformulated gasoline regulations, 

 

51 Many SIP-approved versions of California’s mobile and area source emission regulations are available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&count=500&state=California&cat=Air+Resources+Board-AgencyWide+Provisions.
18 

· 3 CCR sections 6624 and 6626, which set recordkeeping and reporting requirements for pesticide 

use. 

At the air district level, as discussed in our evaluation for CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), above, emission 

limits appear as prohibitory rules and within operating and preconstruction permits. Thus, we have 

considered air districts SIP-approved provisions for enforcing both prohibitory rules and permits for 

stationary sources.52 Districts have routinely adopted provisions that explicitly describe some of their 

enforcement authorities and many of them have been approved into the SIP. For example: 

· Bay Area AQMD’s Manual of Procedures, Volume 1 (“Enforcement Procedures”), which sets 

enforcement procedures for evaluation of visible emissions and inspection criteria for Phase II 

gasoline vapor recovery systems, 

· Calaveras County APCD Rule 323, which requires the control officer and his staff to generally 

enforce the districts open burning regulations, 

· Northern Sonoma County APCD Rule 320, which defines violations of the district’s open 

burning regulations as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment or fines, 

· Lassen County APCD’s Rulebook, Appendix B (“Implementation Plan for Agricultural 

Burning”), which provides for penalties and procedures for enforcement of agricultural burning 

violations, 

· San Diego County APCD Rule 134 (“Source Inspection”) and Santa Barbara County APCD 

Rule 604 (“Source Inspection”), which require the respective control officers to inspect 

stationary sources subject to mandatory emissions curtailment in the event of an emergency 

episode, 

· San Joaquin Valley APCD Rules 1040 (general enforcement authority), 1050 (procedures for 

issuing abatement orders), 1070 (inspection authority), and 1090 (penalties for violating orders 

of abatement), 

· San Luis Obispo County APCD Rule 212 (“Periodic Inspection and Recertification of Permits to 

Operate”), which requires the control officer to inspect and recertify equipment at permitted 

facilities, and 

· South Coast AQMD Rule 105 (“Authority to Arrest”), which authorizes the control officer and 

other district officers and employees to arrest any person violating a district emission control 

order, regulation, or rule. 

Conclusion

With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of control measures, we propose to approve California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

based on the state’s statutory and regulatory provisions, which provide an adequate infrastructure for 

SIP enforcement. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) – Resources, Authority, and Oversight (only) 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires SIPs to: 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the State (or, except where the Administrator deems 

inappropriate, the general purpose local government or governments, or a regional agency 

designated by the State or general purpose local governments for such purpose) will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry 

out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law 

 

52 Many SIP-approved versions of California’s stationary source prohibitory rules for each air district are available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&count=100&state=California. 
19 

from carrying out such implementation plan or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the State 

comply with the requirements respecting State boards under section 128, and (iii) necessary 

assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for 

ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.

With respect to our evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and compliance with the requirements of 

CAA section 128 on conflict of interest, please refer to our Conflict of Interest TSD, which accompanies 

this TSD.

Related EPA Regulations 

Subpart L (“Legal Authority”) of 40 CFR Part 51 specifies SIP requirements related to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). Subpart L includes three rules: 40 CFR 51.230 (“Requirements for all plans”), 

51.231 (“Identification of legal authority”), and 51.232 (“Assignment of legal authority to local 

agencies”). 

Section 51.280 (“Resources”) of Subpart O (“Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements”) also relates to 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and it specifies that, with respect to resources, a SIP must include a 

description of the resources available to the state and local agencies at the date of submission of the plan 

and of any additional resources needed to carry out the plan during the five-year period following its 

submission. The description must include projections of the extent to which resources will be acquired at 

1-, 3-, and 5-year intervals. 

Section 51.240 (“General Plan Requirements”) states that “[e]ach State implementation plan must 

identify organizations, by official title, that will participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing 

the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations. The plan shall include any related agreements or 

memoranda of understanding among the organizations.” 

California’s response to this requirement 

Personnel and Funding 

California employs state and local agencies to regulate air pollution sources, including ARB, the Bureau 

of Automotive Repair in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, 

and the air districts. California’s 2007 Submittal notes that the California Legislature approves ARB 

funding and personnel annually and that ARB has the opportunity to present annual budget requests to 

meet the requirements of the CAA.53 It states that 90% of ARB’s 2006-2007 budget applies to CAA 

mandates, the majority of which is collected from regulated emission sources, subject to periodic 

adjustments, whose revenues can only be used for air pollution control. At the local level, each district 

governing board approves its district’s annual budget and such budget is funded by “fees paid by 

regulated businesses, motor vehicle registration fees, state and federal grants, and other local sources.”54

The combined ARB and air districts’ budgets for 2006-2007 totaled about $685 million with 3,100 fulltime equivalent staff positions.55 Given a strong history of funding and public support for clean air, ARB 

expects that the necessary funding to meet CAA requirements will continued to be approved going 

forward. 

 

53 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, pp. 3-4. 

54 Id. 

55 Id. 
20 

California’s subsequent infrastructure SIP submittals generally reiterated these statements with some 

adjustments and additions. California’s 2011 and 2012 Submittals state that over 80% of ARB’s budget 

was applied to CAA mandates and that the combined ARB and air districts’ budgets for 2009-2010 

totaled $1.2 billion with over 3,400 full-time equivalent staff positions.56 California’s 2014 Submittal 

adds that “the majority of ARB’s budget comprises dedicated fees collected from regulated emission 

sources and other sources such as vehicle registration fees and vehicle license plate fees” that can only 

be used for air pollution control.57

Authority 

California’s 2007 Submittal states that the “legal authority for state, district, and local efforts to improve 

air quality is contained primarily in Division 25.5 and Division 26 of the HSC, although authority for 

some programs is located elsewhere in the State codes.”58 With respect to the SIP, this submittal refers 

to HSC section 39602, which states that ARB is the “state agency responsible for the preparation of the 

state implementation plan required by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C., Sec. 7401, et seq.) and, to this end, 

shall coordinate the activities of all districts necessary to comply with that act.”59

Authority to control vehicular sources is granted to ARB under HSC section 3900260 and sections 

43000, 43000.5, 43013(b), and 43018 “provide authority for ARB to adopt emission standards and other 

regulations to reduce emissions from new and in-use motor vehicles and other mobile sources.”61

Additional authorities are also cited for regulation of mobile sources, including:62

· Marine vessels (e.g., authorities under California’s Tanner Act to adopt Air Toxic Control 

Measures (ATCMs) to control identified Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), “including 

‘particulate emissions from diesel fueled engines’ (see 17 CCR sections 93000 and 93001)”), 

· California’s inspection and maintenance program, known as Smog Check (i.e., HSC section 

44002), 

· Fuels (i.e., HSC sections 43018 and 43013), 

· Consumer products (i.e., HSC section 41712(b)), 

· Gasoline vapor recovery (i.e., HSC sections 41954,63 which “requires ARB to adopt procedures 

and performance standards for controlling gasoline vapor emissions from gasoline marketing 

operations, including transfer and storage operations, to achieve and maintain ambient air quality 

standards,” and HSC section 39607(d), which “requires ARB to adopt test procedures to 

determine compliance with ARB and districts’ non-vehicular standards”), and 

· Pesticides (i.e., Divisions 6 and 7 of the California Food and Agricultural Code (FAC)). 

 

The submittal also discussed the applicability of waivers of federal preemption for regulation of mobile 

sources such as marine vessels. In addition, California’s 2007 Submittal states that the “primary 

 

56 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-7; California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-8. 

57 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 20. 

58 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix G, p. 1. 

59 Id. p. 2. 

60 Id. p. 2. 

61 Id. p. 4. 

62 Id. p. 3-9. 

63 This HSC provision is among a series of provisions (i.e., HSC Section 41950 to 41962) that were approved into the 

California SIP in conjunction with a SIP revision submitted on April 23, 1980 for South Coast AQMD. 40 CFR 

52.220(b)(69). 
21 

responsibility for nonvehicular controls falls to the local air districts ([sections] 39002, 40000-40002, 

40702, 40717; see also [sections] 40400-40540 for provisions specific to the South Coast [AQMD]).”64

California’s 2007 Submittal cites HSC sections 39002, 41500, 41502, 41503, 41504, 41505 and 41652 

as granting ARB regulatory oversight of the air districts programs, including the power to undertake a 

district’s air pollution control programs if ARB determines that the district has failed to meet its 

responsibilities under state law.65 California’s 2011, 2012, and 2014 Submittals reiterate ARB’s 

oversight authority vested in HSC section 39002.66

EPA’s evaluation 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals provide high-level information on California’s personnel and 

funding and discussion of a broad array of statutory authorities for the state and air districts to 

implement the California SIP, and for ARB to ensure adequate implementation of the SIP by the air 

districts. Thus, we propose to find that the submittals collectively meet the resource, authority, and 

oversight requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), as discussed below. 

Personnel and Funding 

While California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals present relatively little information on the personnel 

and funding of ARB and the 35 air districts, the recent annual budget figures of $1.2 billion with over 

3,400 full-time equivalent staff positions represent a very large investment towards fulfilling state and 

federal clean air requirements and goals. The submittals also describe the sources of funding as coming 

from fees paid by regulated businesses, motor vehicle registration and license plate fees, state and 

federal grants, and other local sources and that such funds must be applied towards air pollution control 

activities, a high percentage of which is applied towards CAA requirements. The submittals do not make 

specific projections for funding levels into the future, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.280, on the basis that ARB 

and the air districts’ budgets must be approved annually by the California Legislature and district 

governing boards; hence, there is some uncertainty. However, they do present a compelling case that the 

large amount of funding for clean air programs will continue. Indeed, from the time of California’s 2007 

Submittal to 2014, the collective ARB and air district budgets have grown substantially while retaining a 

high percentage that is applied towards CAA requirements. 

In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.240, California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals identify the primary 

organizations that participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the SIP as ARB, the Bureau of 

Automotive Repair in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and 

the 35 air districts. California’s submittals also identify many organizations that are consulted during 

SIP development, including metropolitan and regional transportation planning organizations, 

transportation and vehicular agencies, energy agencies, etc.67

We conclude that the submittals’ information on funding levels and sources and personnel levels are a 

fair representation of the state resources and provide the necessary assurance of adequate funding and 

 

64 Id. p. 2. 

65 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, pp. 3-4, and Appendix G, p. 2. 

66 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-7; California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-8; and 

California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 20. 

67 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. 38-39. Table 16 presents a list of consulted stakeholders, while Figure 1 

presents a map of California Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies 

(RTPAs). 
22 

personnel. Therefore, we proposed to find that they meet the resource-related requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280. 

Authority 

The authorities cited in California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals apply to all NAAQS (e.g., the 

authorities cited in California’s 2007 Submittal are not limited to just the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS). For the state’s overarching SIP authority, HSC section 39602 clearly identifies ARB as the 

agency responsible for SIP preparation and coordination with the air districts. Regarding division of 

state and local authorities, HSC section 39002 vests authority to regulate vehicular sources with ARB 

(with some exceptions with respect to federal law) and assign authority to regulate all other sources to 

local and regional authorities (i.e., the air districts), including authority to set stricter standards than 

those set by state law or ARB. 

Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.230, they grant ARB and the air districts broad authority 

to do the following: 

· adopt emission standards and limitations (i.e., for mobile sources, consumer products, pesticides, 

and stationary sources, as described in our summary of California’s response to this 

requirement), 

· enforce applicable laws, regulations and standards (see our discussion of the state’s authority and 

programs for enforcement in evaluation for CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), above), 

· abate pollutant emissions on an emergency basis (see our Emergency Episode Planning TSD, 

which accompanies this TSD), 

· prevent construction, modification, or operation of stationary sources that will prevent the 

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS (see our Permit Programs TSD, which accompanies 

this TSD), 

· obtain information necessary to determine compliance (e.g., HSC section 41511, which 

authorizes ARB and air districts to adopt rules and regulations to require stationary source 

owners and operators to determine amounts of emission coming from such sources), and 

· require stationary source emissions monitoring (see our evaluation for CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), 

below). 

HSC sections 39002, 40000-40002, 40702, 40717 for all air districts, and sections 40400-40540 South 

Coast AQMD, assign legal authority to carry out a portion of the SIP (i.e., adopt and implement 

stationary source rules and regulations), as provided by 40 CFR 51.232. With respect to 40 CFR 51.231, 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals each identify the state statutes that provide authority to 

develop and enforce a SIP to meet applicable federal requirements and while most of the submittals do 

not provide copies of the statutes cited within the submittal itself, California’s 2014 Submittal does so.68

Regarding oversight of local agencies, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), HSC section 41500(c) 

requires ARB to review the air districts enforcement programs and determine whether “reasonable 

action is being taken to enforce their programs, rules, and regulations.” In turn, if ARB finds that a 

district is not taking such reasonable action, section 41505 grants ARB the authority, after public 

hearing, to exercise the district’s powers to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air 

quality standards. These provide the necessary assurances that where the state has relied on the air 

districts, ARB has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP as required under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and 40 CFR 51.232(b)(2). 

 

68 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Attachment 1. 
23 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F) – Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: 

as may be prescribed by the Administrator— (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement 

of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature 

and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of 

such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant 

to this CAA, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection. 

The SIP must provide citations to regulations with source monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. For federal regulations on stationary source monitoring, see 40 CFR part 51, subpart A 

(“Air Emissions Reporting Requirements”, or AERR) and subpart K (“Source Surveillance”). 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal refers to stationary source monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 51.214 

(“Continuous emissions monitoring”) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P (“Minimum emission monitoring 

requirements”) and asserts all air districts have SIP-approved regulations to implement these 

requirements.69 In addition, ARB states that HSC section 42700 et seq. “encourages districts to require 

emission monitoring devices on major stationary sources” and that many districts have adopted 

regulations to require as much. Lastly, the submittal explains that ARB maintains an emissions 

inventory database of over 10,000 stationary sources (http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/disclaim.htm), for which 

the air districts are responsible for providing data, and an emissions reporting website that allows 

emissions data to be filtered by air basin, county, or source category 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm). 

California’s 2011 Submittal states that the aforementioned emissions inventory database now tracks 

14,000 stationary sources, including stationary sources of Pb.70 ARB asserts that this inventory goes 

beyond the federal requirements of the AERR rule, for instance, with its Hot Spots program for toxic air 

contaminants that requires sources to report Pb emissions at levels below 0.0005 tons per year. The 

submittal also cites HSC section 41511 as authorizing ARB and the air districts to adopt rules and 

regulations requiring sources to “take reasonable steps to determine the amount of emissions released 

from the source,” such as those that would contribute to violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.71 It states that 

air districts have rules that authorize their control officers “to request the installation, use, maintenance, 

and inspection of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) equipment” and specify 

requirements for performance, recordkeeping, reporting, and notification of violations or breakdown.72

California’s 2012 Submittal reiterates that ARB compiles stationary source emissions data from the air 

districts and notes that the AERR rule requires facilities emitting 2,500 tpy or more of NOx to report 

their emissions annually, and those emitting from 100 to 2,499 tpy to report every three years.73 It 

asserts that some districts are more stringent than federal requirements, such as South Coast AQMD, 

which requires reporting for facilities emitting 10 tpy or more of NOx. The submittal also reiterates its 

reference to HSC section 41511. 

 

69 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 4. 

70 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-8. 

71 Id. 

72 Id. 

73 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-9. 
24 

California’s 2014 Submittal echoes the prior submittals in referencing the air districts’ overarching 

authority to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to meet federal standards, including the 

determination of stationary source emissions (HSC sections 40001(a) and 41511), and to have right of 

entry to inspect emission sources, sample emissions, and secure records (HSC section 41510).74 The 

submittal then discusses each of the sub-requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) regarding (i) 

stationary source monitoring, (ii) emissions reporting, and (iii) correlation of emission reports with 

emission limits in permits and rules. It also identifies example rules that address each requirement, 

which we discuss further in our evaluation section below. Overall, ARB asserts that each of California’s 

35 air districts may have dozens of rules requiring emissions monitoring and reporting.75

With respect to stationary source monitoring, California’s 2014 Submittal notes that the AERR rule 

includes emission monitoring thresholds and provisions for Pb, NOx, PM2.5, SOx, VOCs, and ammonia 

(NH3) and that the thresholds vary by pollutant.76 For instance, facilities emitting 250 tpy or more of 

PM2.5 must report their emissions annually, while those that 100 to 250 tpy must report every three 

years, in contrast with the higher thresholds for NOx described above. The submittal states that air 

districts usually address such stationary source monitoring requirements via regulations that include 

emission limits and other requirements for source categories that significantly contribute to levels of the 

NAAQS air pollutants and that such regulations may be submitted as revisions to the California SIP. 

While many rules contain public data availability requirements, public access to such monitoring data is 

generally available under California GC Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5, Inspection of Public Records, 

Article 1, [section] 6254.7(b).77 The submittal also notes that the resulting data can be used for 

compliance purposes such as the assessment of penalties for emission limit violations, per CAA section 

113(e). See Table 9 of California’s 2014 Submittal for examples of rules requiring stationary source 

emissions monitoring.78

For stationary source emissions reporting, California’s 2014 Submittal states that stationary source 

owners and operators report emissions data to their respective air district according to the regulations of 

such air district, and provides examples of such rules in Table 10 of the submittal.79 In addition, the 

submittal points to the air districts’ permit programs as often requiring stationary source emissions 

reporting that is more stringent than the general federal requirements of the AERR rule. For instance, the 

Title V permit programs in South Coast AQMD and Ventura County APCD specify emission thresholds 

of 10 tpy and 25 tpy, respectively, of NOx and VOC. 

With respect to correlation of emissions reports with emission limits, California’s 2014 Submittal cites 

HSC section 41511 as authorizing ARB and the air districts to adopt rules that require owners and 

operators of stationary sources “to take reasonable steps to determine the amount of emissions released 

from sources.”80 The submittal states that the air districts address the federal correlation requirement 

within their stationary source emissions reporting rules and through their programs for testing, 

inspection, and compliance. For example, air districts have rules that authorize their control officers to 

require CEMS equipment and to assure compliance, which may include calculation procedures to 

correlate emissions with the applicable emission standards. The submittal states that some air districts 

 

74 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 22. 

75 Id. As noted in the submittal, a listing of air district rules is available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb.htm, SIP 

approved versions of many of these rules are available on EPA Region 9’s website: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&count=100&state=California. 

76 Id., p. 23. 

77 Id.

78 Id., p. 24, Table 9. 

79 Id., p. 26, Table 10. 

80 Id., p. 27. 
25 

have SIP-approved rules that closely mirror the language of 40 CFR 51.116(c), such as Mendocino 

County AQMD Rule 240(e)(3) (“Permit to Operate – Compliance Verification”) and Great Basin 

Unified APCD Rule 215(D) (“Public Availability of Emissions Data”). Finally, it states that all 

California air districts have federally-approved Title V operating permit programs wherein each permit 

specifies the air pollution requirements that apply to the permitted source, including those for emission 

limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. 

Lastly, California’s 2014 Submittal discusses ARB’s responsibility to compile the air districts’ 

stationary source monitoring data, which has resulted in an emissions inventory database of VOC, NOx, 

SOx, PM2.5, Pb, and NH3 emissions from over 14,000 stationary sources in the state.81 The submittal 

again asserts that this inventory exceeds the CAA requirements as it captures stationary sources below 

the emissions thresholds specified in the AERR rule. 

EPA’s evaluation 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals present information on the state’s authority, databases of 

stationary sources, how the state and air districts’ requirements often exceeds federal requirements for 

stationary source monitoring, and specific examples of SIP-approved regulations that require stationary 

source monitoring, reporting, and correlation of emission limits with applicable emission limits and 

permit conditions. We find that the examples cited by California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals are 

representative of the state as a whole. Therefore, we propose to find that the overarching authorities and 

SIP-approved regulations provide an adequate basis to conclude that California meets the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), as discussed below. 

California’s underlying state statutes that provide authority for ARB and the air districts to adopt rules 

and regulations to determine emissions from stationary sources specify recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, assess compliance with emission limits and permit conditions, and make such data 

available to the public include HSC sections 40001(a), 41510, 41511 and California GC Title 1, 

Division 7, Chapter 3.5, Inspection of Public Records, Article 1, [section] 6254.7(b). ARB maintains an 

extensive database of sources and a means for the public to filter emissions data by air basin, county, or 

source category, both of which are accessible via ARB’s websites cited above. The submittals assert that 

all air districts have SIP-approved regulations to implement the CEMS requirements for the stationary 

sources identified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P (i.e., fossil fuel-fired steam generators, nitric and 

sulfuric acid plants, and fluid bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators at petroleum refineries). 

They also note that California’s stationary source monitoring programs capture many more sources than 

required by federal regulation by setting monitoring thresholds that are often lower than the AERR 

thresholds. In our evaluation we have found these statements to be an accurate, though general 

representation of California’s structure for requiring stationary source monitoring and reporting. For 

instance, some air districts do not have any sources among the categories identified in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix P and therefore may lack CEMS requirements for such sources, which we find to be 

acceptable for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) given the state and air districts’ authority to adopt 

and implement such requirements should such a source propose to locate in any such district.82

For examples of SIP-approved regulations for stationary source monitoring and reporting, we primarily 

reviewed the examples provided in California’s 2014 Submittal and present our evaluation for each of 

the three sub-elements of section 110(a)(2)(F) as follows. For section 110(a)(2)(F)(i), California’s 2014 

 

81 Id., p. 28. California’s stationary source emissions inventory is available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/disclaim.htm. 

82 Also, see Memorandum from Edward E. Reich, Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, EPA, “Clarification 

of Requirements for Inclusion of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State Implementation Plans,” May 9, 1980. 
26 

Submittal cites several rules that require stationary source monitoring, especially for CEMS on 

applicable equipment.83 For instance: 

· Placer County APCD Rule 233, section 500 requires CEMS for NOx emissions from stationary 

combustion turbines, 

· Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 328(C) requires continuous emissions monitoring for NOx, 

SO2, and opacity from fossil fuel-fired steam generators, for NOx from nitric acid plants, and for 

SO2 from sulfuric acid plants, and for SO2 and opacity from fluid bed catalytic cracking units, 

· South Coast AQMD requires boilers, steam generators, and processor heating units of certain 

kinds and over a certain amount of energy to install CEMS for NOx emissions, 

· San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4354, section (5.9), which requires CEMS for emissions of NOx, 

VOCs, and SOx from glass melting furnaces under certain conditions, and 

· Bay Area AQMD Regulation 11, Rule 1-500, which requires monitoring equipment for Pb 

emission sources. 

We propose to find that these and other examples in the California SIP are consistent with the stationary 

source monitoring requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i). 

With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii), California’s 2014 Submittal provides examples of SIPapproved regulations for several districts that require reporting of stationary source emissions data.84 For 

example: 

· Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 212 (“Emission statements”) requires sources permitted to 

emit 10 tpy or more of NOx or reactive organic compounds (ROG, or VOC) to annually report 

actual emissions of NOx or VOCs in writing to the air district, 

· San Diego County APCD Rule 19.3, section (c)(3) similarly requires annual reporting by sources 

emitting 25 tpy or more of NOx or VOCs in writing to the air district, and 

· South Coast AQMD Rule 1420.1, sections (m) and (n) set Pb emission record keeping and public 

notification requirements for large Pb-acid battery facilities. 

We propose to find that these examples and others in the California SIP provide for periodic reports on 

the nature and amount of emissions from applicable stationary sources, consistent with CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F)(ii). 

Lastly, regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), California’s 2014 Submittal highlights SIP-approved 

regulations that provide for correlation of stationary source emission reports with sources’ applicable 

emissions limits or standards.85 For example, Placer Rule 233 requires NOx emission monitoring, as 

discussed above, and the use of emissions test methods that include calculation procedures to correlate 

emissions with the applicable standards; and San Diego County APCD Rule 69.3 (“Stationary Gas 

Turbine Engines”) requires annual compliance testing, which similarly include calculation procedures to 

correlate NOx emissions to the applicable source limits. Some older rules, such as Mendocino County 

AQMD Rule 240(e)(3) and Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 215(D) mirror the wording of the 

stationary source correlation requirement of 40 CFR 51.116(c), as noted by ARB, by requiring that 

emissions data will be correlated with applicable emission limits and other control measures and be 

made publicly available. Additional examples of public availability requirements include San Diego 

County APCD, Rule 175(A)(2), which states that all air monitoring data are public records; and Bay 

Area AQMD Manual of Procedures, Volume 4, section 1.6, which states that source test records are 

 

83 Id., p. 24, Table 9. 

84 Id., p. 24, Tables 9, and p. 26, Table 10. 

85 Id., p. 24, Table 9, and p. 27. 
27 

public information. We propose to find that these examples and others in the California SIP provide for 

the correlation and public availability requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii). 

Thus, based on California’s overarching authorities to require stationary source monitoring, the state’s 

information systems, the extent of the source categories and sizes that are required to report emissions of 

Pb, NOx, PM2.5, SOx, and VOCs and the examples discussed above of SIP-approved air district 

regulations, we propose to find that California meets the stationary source monitoring and reporting 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H) – SIP Revisions 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to: 

provide for revision of such plan—(i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of 

revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability 

of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) except as provided 

in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to 

the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air 

quality standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements 

established under this Act. 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal simply states that ARB is submitting a revised SIP for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and that ARB commits to make such SIP revisions whenever EPA promulgates air 

quality standards.86 A similar theme appears in California’s subsequent infrastructure SIP submittals. 

For instance, California’s 2011 Submittal states that the submittal itself is evidence of the state providing 

SIP revisions and that ARB was working with South Coast AQMD to develop a SIP revision for the Los 

Angeles County nonattainment area for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.87 California’s 2012 Submittal notes that 

no area of California has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, yet ARB commits 

to work with air districts in the future to develop the relevant SIP revisions should a portion of the state 

be designated nonattainment.88 California’s 2014 Submittal cites HSC section 39602 as designating 

ARB as the agency responsible for implementing the federal CAA, which includes responsibility for 

preparing and submitting revisions to the California SIP to address new or revised standards or 

improved methods of meeting the standards.89 It states that ARB consults with the air districts and other 

affected entities in developing SIP revisions and that the submittal itself is evidence of the state 

providing SIP revisions. 

EPA’s evaluation 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals describe the general capacity, commitment, and process of the 

state to submit SIP revisions as required and California’s 2014 Submittal cites the overarching statutory 

authority of ARB to implement the CAA, including submission of SIPs to address new and revised 

NAAQS and improved methods of meeting the NAAQS. We have reviewed the authority provision of 

HSC section 39602 as well as those evaluated for CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). We propose to find that 

they provide for SIP revisions in response to NAAQS revisions and whenever the EPA Administrator 

finds the California SIP to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or does not comply with 

 

86 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 5. 

87 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-10. 

88 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-11. 

89 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 35. 
28 

requirements established under the Act, and therefore meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H). 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I) – Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires SIPs to “in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated 

as a nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to nonattainment areas).”

While this section requires States to meet nonattainment area requirements, pursuant to CAA title I, part 

D, when submitting plans or plan revisions for nonattainment areas, EPA has concluded that the 

submission of, and subsequent EPA action on, nonattainment SIP revisions by States is not governed by 

the three-year submission deadline identified in CAA section 110(a)(1). Instead, SIP revisions for 

nonattainment areas are due and evaluated under the requirements for nonattainment areas described in 

part D. Thus, we do not include a summary of California’s response to this requirement nor an 

evaluation of such response. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – Consultation, Public Notification, and Visibility Protection 

(only) 

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

consultation), section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).” 

CAA section 121 requires SIPs, in carrying out the requirements under the CAA requiring SIPs to 

contain any transportation controls, air quality maintenance plan requirements or preconstruction review 

of direct sources of air pollution, or any measure referred to in part D or part C of title I,90 to provide a 

process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected 

official of local governments, and any federal land manager (FLM) having authority over federal land to 

which the state plan applies. Such process shall be in accordance with regulations promulgated by EPA. 

In essence, section 121 requires a satisfactory process of consultation with three kinds of organizations 

(general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, 

and any FLM) for three kinds of planning arenas (transportation controls, air quality maintenance plans, 

and preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution, including PSD). 

CAA section 127 requires SIPs to contain measures to effectively notify the public during any calendar 

year on a regular basis of instances or areas in which any NAAQS is exceeded or was exceeded during 

any portion of the preceding calendar year; to advise the public of the health hazards associated with 

such pollution; and to enhance public awareness of the measures which can be taken to prevent such 

standards from being exceeded and the ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other 

efforts to improve air quality. Such measures may include the posting of warning signs on interstate 

highway access points to metropolitan areas or television, radio, or press notices or information. 

With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) to meet the applicable requirements CAA 

title I, part C relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, please refer to our Permit 

Programs TSD, which accompanies this TSD. 

 

90 Section 121 was added by the CAA Amendments of 1977, and it also refers to section 113(d) (relating to certain 

enforcement orders), but section 113(d) was significantly amended by the CAA Amendments of 1990, and as so amended, no 

longer relates to state enforcement orders. Also, we view the requirement of section 121 to provide a satisfactory process of 

consultation for “any measure referred to in part D” to be outside the scope of infrastructure SIP evaluations since the part D 

requirements pertain to nonattainment planning requirements. 
29 

Related EPA Regulations and Guidance 

EPA’s regulations concerning consultation are set forth in subpart M (“Intergovernmental 

Consultation”) of 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.240 (“General plan requirements”) and 51.241 

(“Nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide and ozone”). Under section 51.240, each SIP must identify 

organizations by official title that will participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the SIP 

and the responsibilities of such organizations. The SIP shall include any related agreements or 

memoranda of understanding among the organizations. Under section 52.241, for each Air Quality 

Control Region (AQCR) or portion of an AQCR in which the NAAQS for carbon monoxide or ozone, 

the Governor must certify, after consultation with local officials, the organization responsible for 

developing the revised SIP or portions thereof for such AQCR. 

EPA’s regulations concerning public notification are set forth in subpart O (“Miscellaneous Plan 

Content Requirements”) of 40 CFR part 51, section 51.285 (“Public notification”). Section 51.285 

requires SIPs to provide for “(a) Notifying the public on a regular basis of instances or areas in which 

any primary standard was exceeded during any portion of the preceding calendar year; (b) Advising the 

public of the health hazards associated with such an exceedance of a primary standard; and (c) 

Increasing public awareness of: (1) Measures which can be taken to prevent a primary standard from 

being exceeded, and (2) Ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to 

improve air quality.” 

In addition, EPA’s 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance states that EPA does not expect states to meet the 

applicable requirements for visibility protection under CAA title I, part C in their submittals for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS. While EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze 

program requirements under part C (which includes sections 169A and 169B), in the event of the 

establishment of a new primary NAAQS, the visibility protection and regional haze program 

requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA concludes there are no new applicable visibility 

protection obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.91 This guidance is 

echoed in EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, but with broader application to all NAAQS.92

California’s response to this requirement 

Consultation 

With respect to consultation, California’s 2007 Submittal cites HSC section 41650 et seq. as requiring 

ARB “to conduct public hearings and to solicit testimony from air districts, air quality planning 

agencies, and the public when adopting local nonattainment plans for inclusion in the SIP” and the 

California Administrative Procedures Act, Government Code (GC) section 11340 et seq as requiring 

“notification and provision of comment opportunities to all parties affected by proposed regulations.”93

California’s subsequent infrastructure SIP submittals reiterate this response.94 California’s 2012 

Submittal adds that HSC section 40725 requires to conduct public hearings when adopting, amending, or 

repealing rules. 

 

91 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 16 of the Attachment. 

92 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, pp. 54-55. 

93 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 6. 

94 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-11; and California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-12. 
30 

California’s 2014 Submittal cites HSC section 39602 as designating ARB as the agency responsible for 

implementing the federal CAA, including coordination with the air districts.95 It states that the air 

districts collaborate via CAPCOA workgroups to discuss air quality matters and that CAPCOA meets 

regularly with state and federal air quality officials to develop rules and ensure their consistent 

application. It further describes how ARB works with other local, state, and federal stakeholders in 

developing SIP revisions, such as the consultation conducted with stakeholders during the development 

of SIP revisions such as California’s 2007 State Strategy (for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS) 

and California’s 2009 Regional Haze Plan.96

It reiterates the discussion of HSC requirements from prior infrastructure SIP submittals and then states 

that once a SIP revision is submitted to EPA that consultation is on-going. For example, ARB, EPA, the 

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air 

districts have signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) committing to develop and test new air 

quality control technologies and creating the Clean Air Technology Initiative with the purpose of 

accelerating attainment of the NAAQS in South Coast and San Joaquin Valley.97 California’s 2014 

Submittal states that, among other things, this MOA intends to coordinate public and private research 

efforts to develop, demonstrate, and assess such new technologies. The submittal identifies a further 

example of such consultation embodied in ARB’s memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Union 

Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads to reduce diesel emissions from rail 

yards. 

Public Notification 

Regarding public notification, California’s 2007 Submittal refers to HSC section 39607(a) as requiring 

ARB to acquire and publicly report air quality data for each air basin in the state and cites several 

websites that contain information on the health effects of air pollution, current air quality, and what the 

public can do to reduce air pollution.98 California’s subsequent infrastructure SIP submittals reiterate 

this response.99 California’s 2012 and 2014 Submittals add that ARB and the air districts calculate daily 

values according to the air quality index (AQI), developed by EPA, and provide the public information 

with respect to ambient air concentrations of NO2.

100 California’s 2014 Submittal further cites HSC 

section 40718(a) as requiring ARB to publish maps of areas violating the NAAQS based on the most 

recent data.101

Visibility Protection 

With respect to visibility protection, California’s 2007 Submittal does not directly discuss such 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. California’s 

2011 and 2014 Submittals refer to EPA guidance, which states that the visibility protection and regional 

haze requirements under CAA title I, part C don’t change with a new primary NAAQS, and therefore 

 

95 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 36. 

96 Id., pp. 38-39. Table 16 presents a list of consulted stakeholders, while Figure 1 presents a map of California Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). 

97 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 40. 

98 Id., p. 7. See ARBs’ websites on “Health Effects of Air Pollution” (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/health.htm), 

AQMIS (http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqmis2.php), and “Air Pollution and What You Can Do”

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/cando.htm). 

99 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-11; and California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-12. 

100 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-12; and California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 41. 

101 See ARB’s website on “Area Designations Maps / State and National” (http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm). 
31 

there is not any new visibility protection obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).102 California’s 

2012 Submittal states that California’s SIP-approved regional haze plan103 addresses NOx as a 

component of particle pollution and, as such, the regional haze plan will reduce the impact of NO2

emissions on visibility in Class I (e.g., national parks and wilderness) areas in the state. 

EPA’s evaluation 

California’s 2014 Submittal is the primary basis for our evaluation of California’s provisions for 

consultation, public notification, and visibility protection as it presents the most comprehensive picture 

of how the state addressed these requirements and builds on prior submittals. We discuss each of these 

requirements below and propose to find that California’s Infrastructure Submittals meet the consultation, 

public notification, and visibility requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Consultation 

We have reviewed California’s Infrastructure SIPs, and the authorities, entities, and processes discussed 

therein, and propose to find that they provide a satisfactory process of consultation, consistent with CAA 

section 121. California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals cite several statutory authorities that require 

public review during the state and air districts’ adoption of nonattainment area plans and adoption, 

amendment, or repeal of rules and regulations. California’s 2014 Submittals cites ARB’s overarching 

responsibility in HSC section 39602 to implement the CAA, including coordination with air districts in 

developing, implementing, and enforcing the California SIP. 

The latter submittal describes ARB’s collaboration with CAPCOA and its stakeholder consultation as 

exemplified by the 2007 State Strategy (for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS) and the California 

Regional Haze Plan.104 It names an extensive number of general purpose local governments (such as the 

MPOs and RTPAs),105 organization of elected officials (including the air district boards),106 and, by 

reference to California’s Regional Haze Plan, FLMs (such as the National Park Service), consistent with 

40 CFR 51.240. ARB collaborates with each of these entities, as applicable, on transportation planning 

and conformity to the California SIP, air quality maintenance plans (such as those developed by ARB 

and the air districts), and preconstruction review of direct sources of air pollution (which is managed by 

the air districts).107 California’s 2014 Submittal also gives examples of MOA/MOUs whose creation is 

designed to accelerate the development of emission control technologies for San Joaquin Valley APCD 

and South Coast AQMD (i.e., via the Clean Technology Initiative) and to reduce diesel emissions from 

rail yards (i.e., UP/BNSF MOA). Such agreements provide a process to develop technology that will be 

implemented as part of the states’ CAA programs. 

On the basis of ARB’s SIP authority, ARB and the air districts’ public review process, ARB’s process 

for stakeholder consultation for transportation and air quality maintenance plans, and MOA/MOU 

examples, we propose to find that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals meet the consultation 

requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). 

 

102 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, pp. A-11 to A-12; and California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 41. 

103 76 FR 34608, June 14, 2011. The California regional haze plan is available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/reghaze/reghaze.htm.

104 The consultation procedures described in Chapter 8 of California’s Regional Haze SIP revision were approved into the 

California SIP as part of EPA’s approval of that SIP revision. 76 FR 34608, June 14, 2011. 

105 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 39, Figure 1 shows a map and names of the California MPOs and RTPAs. 

106 Id., p. 37, Table 15. 

107 For example, the Interagency Consultation Procedures section of California’s transportation conformity SIP revision for 

the San Francisco Bay Area was approved into the California SIP as part of EPA’s approval of that SIP revision. 72 FR 

58013, October 12, 2007. 
32 

Public Notification 

With respect to the requirements of CAA section 127 and 40 CFR 51.285, California’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals, and California’s 2014 Submittal in particular, provide for public notification. 

Specifically, HSC section 39607(a) requires ARB to acquire and publicly report data on each air basin 

and HSC section 40718(a) requires ARB to publish maps of areas violating the NAAQS. ARB and the 

air districts have established websites, as noted above, that present information on air quality (e.g., 

displaying the current AQI and monitored data, and periodic reports of current and recent air quality), 

the health effects of air pollution, and increasing public awareness of steps to take to avoid creating air 

pollution and of means to participate in the public review process for plans and rules proposed by ARB 

and the air districts. Thus, we propose to find that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals meet the 

public notification requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Visibility Protection 

California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals present rather little information on visibility protection for 

purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) on the basis of statements in EPA’s guidance. EPA’s 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance contends that when the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the visibility 

protection requirements under CAA title I, part C do not change and, therefore, there are no newly 

applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).108 We maintain that 

contention here and propose to find that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals meet the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).109

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) – Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to: 

provide for—(i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may 

prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any 

air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality 

standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator. 

To meet section 110(a)(2)(K), EPA recommends that, at a minimum, states identify the statutory or 

regulatory provisions that provide state and local air agencies with the authority to perform the 

following actions, along with a narrative explanation of how the provisions meet the requirements to (1) 

conduct 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 (2) provide such modeling data to the EPA 

Administrator upon request.110

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal asserts that ARB’s air quality modeling complies with EPA’s guidance on 

attainment demonstration modeling for ozone and PM2.5 and that ARB “endeavors to use the latest 

 

108 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, pp. 54-55. 

109 Notwithstanding this conclusion, we also note that EPA has approved California’s Regional Haze Plan, which adequately 

addresses emissions of ozone and PM2.5 precursor pollutants and their impact on visibility protection at Class 1 areas in 

California and nearby states. 76 FR 34608, June 14, 2011. 

110 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 55. 
33 

methodology and techniques” and documents the nature and performance of such modeling.111 ARB 

also collaborates with the air districts as they conduct air quality modeling. California’s 2011 Submittal 

reiterates these responses and acknowledges EPA’s position that source-oriented dispersion modeling 

would be most predominant for implementing the 2008 Pb NAAQS.112 California’s 2012 Submittal adds 

that state and air district representatives worked through the California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association (CAPCOA) “to develop a common platform of information, tools, and stationary source 

modeling recommendations specific to the [2010 NO2 NAAQS],” which resulted in a guidance 

document entitled “Modeling Compliance of the Federal 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS.”113 As with other CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, California’s 2014 Submittal refers to its overarching CAA authority 

under HSC section 39602 as providing ARB the authority to air quality modeling.114 This submittal 

states that ARB modeling complies with federal requirements and that ARB works closely with the air 

districts to ensure that their modeling does so as well. It further notes that ARB and the air districts 

document their modeling protocols for EPA review, that public comments are considered in the 

development of modeling for a final SIP revision, and that the results of such modeling are made 

available to EPA and other stakeholders upon request. 

EPA’s evaluation 

California’s 2014 Submittal identifies HSC 39602, which grants ARB its overarching SIP authority, as 

its statutory basis for authority to conduct modeling, as well as its responsibility to coordinate SIP 

development with the air districts.115 This authority is very broad, so we also reviewed the submittals’ 

other statements on modeling. For example, California’s 2007 State Strategy, which included 

California’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, also included 

modeling for attainment of those NAAQS and which ARB contends as complying with EPA guidance 

on such modeling. An additional example is California’s June 20, 2012 attainment SIP revision for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS for the Los Angeles County nonattainment area, which included attainment modeling 

and which EPA approved in 2014.116 There are many other examples of California SIP revisions that 

include modeling data and analysis to predict the effect of emissions on ambient air quality. Such 

submittals provide evidence of California’s authority to conduct modeling and submit its data and 

analysis to EPA in conjunction with a SIP revision. Also, ARB’s reference to the state’s guidance 

document entitled “Modeling Compliance of the Federal 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS” underscores the 

collaboration that ARB undertakes to coordinate modeling efforts with the air districts. We propose to 

find that the broad authority of HSC section 39602 in conjunction with the various modeling efforts 

undertaken by ARB and the districts provide for ambient air quality modeling and data submission 

consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) – Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to “provide for consultation and participation by local political 

subdivisions affected by the plan.” 

 

111 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 7. For further information, see ARB’s website for “Modeling Software” at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/soft.htm#modeling. 

112 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-12. 

113 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-13. A copy of the CAPCOA NO2 modeling guidance is 

available at: http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/CAPCOANO2GuidanceDocument10-27-11.pdf. 

114 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 42. 

115 Id. p. 2. 

116 79 FR 13875, March 12, 2014. 
34 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal states that ARB regularly consults and communicates with air district 

management, staff, and air district boards, the latter of which are composed of locally elected 

officials.117 As in its response to the consultation requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J), the 

submittal cites HSC section 41650 et seq. as requiring ARB “to conduct public hearings and to solicit 

testimony from air districts, air quality planning agencies, and the public when adopting local 

nonattainment plans for inclusion in the SIP.”118 California’s 2011 Submittal reiterates this response,119

as does California’s 2012 Submittal, which adds that the air districts have a similar process for 

participation and comment on proposed regulatory actions,120 and California’s 2014 Submittal, which 

adds further reference to HSC requirements.121 Under HSC section 39602 ARB shall coordinate its SIP 

activities with the air districts, while GC section 11340, et seq., requires notification and comment 

opportunities to parties affected by proposed regulations, and HSC section 40725 requires air districts to 

provide for public review when adopting, amending, or repealing district rules. 

EPA’s evaluation 

ARB highlights its regular process of consultation with the air districts and, in turn, the air districts’ 

processes for seeking participation and comment on proposed rules and regulations. In other words, the 

air districts are the local political subdivisions implied by CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) and these 

processes are supported by the various HSC statutes cited in California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

that require public review. For instance, HSC section 39602 requires ARB to coordinate the SIP 

activities of the air districts and HSC section 41651 grants ARB authority to “question and solicit 

testimony of qualified representatives of the state board staff on the matter being considered” during a 

public hearing on a proposed nonattainment area plan. In addition, as noted in our evaluation for the 

consultation requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J), ARB also consults with MPOs and RTPAs, 

which can be considered local political subdivisions of the state in that they address metropolitan and 

regional transportation planning issues and include elected officials representing their respective area 

(e.g., the Southern California Association of Governments, or SCAG.)122

We therefore propose to conclude that California adequately provides for consultation and participation 

by local political subdivisions affected by the California SIP, and that California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(M). 

 

117 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, p. 8. 

118 Id. 

119 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-13. 

120 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-14. 

121 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 45. 

122 Id., p. 39, Figure 1.