California Infrastructure SIP 

Interstate Transport 

Technical Support Document 

Evaluation of California Infrastructure SIPs for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)/interstate 

transport

U.S. EPA, Region 9 

September 2014 
1 

Table of Contents 

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

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

Statutory Requirements................................................................................................................ 2

Guidance....................................................................................................................................... 2

Evaluation Introduction................................................................................................................ 3

Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for 2008 Pb NAAQS ........................................................ 4

Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for 2010 NO2 NAAQS ..................................................... 5

Interstate Transport (Prong 3) ...................................................................................................... 6

Interstate Transport (Prong 4) ...................................................................................................... 7

Interstate and International Pollution Abatement......................................................................... 8

Summary 

We have evaluated California’s Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals with respect 

to the requirements for interstate transport of air pollution (“interstate transport” or “transport”) of Clean 

Air Act (CAA, or the Act) section 110(a)(2)(D). In the following pages, we describe the relevant 

requirements, summarize California’s submittals, and present our evaluation for interstate transport for 

each applicable national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

There are essentially six requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is 

subdivided into four “prongs.” The two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit emissions in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment 

of the NAAQS in any other state (“prong 1”) and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state (“prong 2”). The two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit emissions in amounts that will interfere with other states’ SIP measures 

that are required under CAA title I, part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (“prong 3”) 

or to protect visibility (“prong 4”). Of these, transport prongs 1 and 2 have been the subject of 

substantial rulemaking and litigation nationally. The last two requirements, found under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), treat interstate and international pollution abatement. 

California has made submittals for the interstate transport requirements for each of the NAAQS 

established by EPA from 1997 through 2012, with several exceptions. California has not made 

submittals for transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone, 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 2012 

PM2.5, and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS.1 EPA completed final rulemaking for the 1997 ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2011 wherein we approved California’s 2007 Submittal for transport prongs 

1, 2, and 4 and partially approved and partially disapproved that submittal for transport prong 3.2

 

1 California’s infrastructure SIP submittal of July 7, 2009 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, including transport prongs 1 and 2, 

was subsequently withdrawn on July 18, 2014. As a result, on September 29, 2014, EPA’s Region 9 Regional Administrator 

signed a notice issuing a finding of failure to submit for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for transport prongs 1 and 2. In its 

withdrawal letter, California Air Resources Board (ARB) indicates that it intends to submit a SIP to address transport prongs 

1 and 2 for the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour standard and the 2012 PM2.5 annual standard together. 

2

 EPA completed final rulemaking on Appendix C (“Revised Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan”) of California’s 

2007 Submittal, as modified by Attachment A of that same submittal, which addresses the interstate transport requirements of 

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

We are proposing to find the following with respect to California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals: 

· California meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (transport prongs 1 and 2) for the 

2008 lead (Pb) and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS; 

· California partially meets the requirements of section (110)(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to PSD 

(transport prong 3); 

· California meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility 

protection (transport prong 4); and 

· California partially meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (interstate and 

international pollution abatement). 

Please refer to our Overarching Technical Support Document (TSD), which accompanies this TSD, for 

our general summary and background of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, identification of the 

relevant NAAQS, and references to applicable EPA guidance memos. In particular, the abbreviations for 

submittals and guidance titles (e.g., California’s 2014 Submittal, 2007 Transport SIP Guidance, etc.) are 

incorporated by reference into this TSD. 

Statutory Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act requires that each SIP: 

contain adequate provisions— 

(i) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will— 

(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standard, or 

(II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to 

protect visibility, and 

(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution abatement). 

Section 126(a) of the Act requires notification to affected, nearby states of proposed new or modified 

major sources. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA regarding sources 

violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 of the Act 

pertains to international transport of air pollution. 

Guidance 

EPA has issued several national memos that provide guidance on the interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D), including the 2006 Transport SIP Guidance (for transport prongs 1 through 4 for 

the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), the 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance (for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS), the 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance (for the 2008 Pb NAAQS), and the 2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance (for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and all future NAAQS). 

For transport prongs 1 and 2, EPA’s 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance provides specific guidance on 

interstate transport of Pb given the differences in the physical properties of Pb relative to other NAAQS 

pollutants. For the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for prongs 1 and 2, we relied on the 2006 Transport SIP 
3 

Guidance, which provides a general basis for evaluating such requirements.3 For transport prongs 3 and 

4 and the interstate and international abatement requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for all NAAQS 

treated by this TSD, we primarily relied on the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, as it is the most 

recent. We include references to EPA’s guidance as relevant and appropriate in each respective section 

of this TSD below. 

Evaluation Introduction

We have divided our evaluation into several sections based on the transport submittals that EPA has 

already acted on, the pairings and distinctions among the various transport requirements, and the 

submittals received to date. 

EPA completed final rulemaking for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2011 wherein we 

approved California’s 2007 Submittal for transport prongs 1, 2, and 4 and partially approved and 

partially disapproved that submittal for transport prong 3.4 This TSD does not include any further 

evaluation for transport prongs 1, 2, and 4 for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For our 

discussion of transport prong 3 for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, please see our Permit 

Programs TSD, which accompanies this TSD. 

We first present our evaluation of transport prongs 1 and 2 for the NAAQS for which California has 

made submittals that are pending EPA action (i.e., the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS). We will 

evaluate and act on California’s future SIP submittals for transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone, 

2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS after they are submitted.5 These two prongs rely on a 

common analytical approach and both deal with interstate air pollution affecting attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS in other states, as opposed to transport prongs 3 and 4 that deal with 

interference with other states’ measures to achieve certain air pollution objectives. 

We then present our evaluation of transport prong 4 and the transport requirements for interstate and 

international pollution abatement for all the NAAQS treated by this TSD (i.e., the 1997 and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS; 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; 2008 Pb NAAQS; 2010 NO2 NAAQS; and 2010 SO2

NAAQS). Our evaluation for prong 4 (interference with other states’ measures to protect visibility) 

relies primarily on California’s SIP-approved program for regional haze. Lastly, our evaluation for 

interstate and international pollution abatement, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), relies on our 

 

3 The most recent guidance, EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, did not include guidance for transport prongs 1 and 2. 

4 See footnote 2, supra. 

5

 Each of these submittals is overdue except for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, whose submittal deadline is December 14, 2015. On 

November 22, 2011, WildEarth Guardians sued EPA to make findings of failure to submit for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 

WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, Case no. 11-cv-5651 (N.D. Cal.). On January 15, 2013, EPA made findings of failure to 

submit for various states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, except for transport prongs 1 and 2, 78 FR 2882. On 

August 27, 2014, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians issued a notice of intent to sue EPA to make findings of failure to 

submit for transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See Letter from Robert Ukeiley, Counsel for Sierra Club 

and WildEarth Guardians, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, titled “Notice of Intent to 

File Suit over Failure to Find that States Have not Submitted State Implementation Plans to Attain and Maintain the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” On February 10, 2014, Sierra Club issued a notice of intent to sue EPA to 

make findings of failure to submit for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See Letter from Robert Ukeiley, Counsel for Sierra Club, to 

Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, titled “Clean Air Act Notice of intent to sue pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2) for failure to take final action on 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS infrastructure state implementation 

plan submittal and failure to make finding of failures to submit.” On September 29, 2014, EPA’s Region 9 Regional 

Administrator signed a notice issuing a finding of failure to submit for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for transport prongs 1 and 2. 
4 

assessment of California’s compliance with the requirements of CAA section 126 (interstate pollution 

abatement) and 115 (international pollution abatement), respectively. 

We present our evaluation for prong 3 (interference with other states’ measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality), which relies on our assessment of the major source preconstruction 

programs in California, in our Permit Programs TSD, which accompanies this TSD. 

Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for 2008 Pb NAAQS

California’s response to this requirement 

The 2014 California Infrastructure SIP states: 

ARB addressed prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 lead standard in its October 6, 2011, Infrastructure 

SIP submittal. This submittal has been deemed complete, but U.S. EPA has not yet acted on it. 

Because the impacts of lead are localized and lead sources in California are limited, transport is 

not an issue. Therefore, ARB will let this portion of the lead Infrastructure SIP stand. 

California’s 2011 Submittal discusses the transport of Pb emissions from one state to another, where 

they could contribute significantly to violations of the federal Pb standard or interfere with maintenance 

of the federal Pb standard. The submittal states California has a single nonattainment area – the South 

Coast Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County. Even within this nonattainment area, it states that 3-

month average Pb concentrations for 2005-2007 ranged from 0.01 μg/m3to 0.03 μg/m3(i.e., well below 

the level of the 2008 Pb NAAQS) except at monitors located in close proximity to two industrial sources 

that are each over 100 miles from the nearest state boundary. California therefore concludes that these 

large Pb facilities do not contribute to violations, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

outside Los Angeles County.

EPA’s evaluation 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states (i.e., “prong 1”) or that will interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states (i.e., “prong 2”). As referenced in California’s Pb Infrastructure Submittal, 

EPA’s 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance noted that the physical properties of Pb limit its potential 

transport relative to other air pollutants like ozone and PM2.5.

6 As such, while it may be possible for a 

source in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a 

rare situation (for example, where large sources are in close proximity to state boundaries).7

 

We have reviewed the 2011 National Emissions Inventory for the State of California and verified that 

there are no sources emitting Pb in amounts greater than 0.5 tpy that are in close proximity to the state’s 

borders.8 

The largest sources of Pb in the state are airports, two military bases, and a secondary Pb smelter. There 

are twelve airports with Pb emission above 0.5 tons per year. They are located in the counties of Los 

Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo, and are more than 100 miles from 

the nearest state border (i.e., Nevada, Arizona or Oregon). The Long Beach Airport in Orange County 

 

6 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 8. 

7

Id.

8 See Appendix A to this TSD. 
5 

has the highest emission rate of any airport in California (1.03 tons per year). The U.S. Marine Corps 

Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range, has Pb emissions of 1.66 tons per year and is located in 

Niland, Imperial County, more than 50 miles from the nearest state border (i.e., Arizona). The Twenty 

Nine Palms base has Pb emissions of 1.36 tons per year and is located in San Bernardino County, more 

than 50 miles from the nearest state border with Arizona. The Exide Technology lead-acid battery 

facility in the Los Angeles County nonattainment area has emissions of 0.51 tons per year and is over 

100 miles from the nearest state border. Furthermore, we note that of the states that border California, 

only Arizona has an area designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS – the Hayden area, which is 

about 200 miles from the California border. 

As a result, the State submittal provides a reasonable basis to conclude that sources in California that 

emit Pb do not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, we propose to find that California’s 2011 Submittal meets the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for 2010 NO2 NAAQS

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2012 Submittal states that California has longstanding and extensive programs to reduce 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions for purposes of attaining the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and notes that 

no area in the nation has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. It further states that 

California’s network of community-wide monitors recorded NO2 values below the NAAQS (i.e., design 

values for 2009-2011 were between 5-75 ppb for the 1-hour NO2 and between 1-25 ppb for the annual 

NO2 standard) and that high NO2 levels near heavily traveled roads drop off quickly with distance from 

such roads. Furthermore, California’s most heavily traveled roads are in urban areas (e.g., Los Angeles, 

Sacramento, San Francisco Bay Area, and San Joaquin Valley) that are not adjacent to any other state’s 

border. Lastly, it refers to California’s 2007 Submittal and EPA’s approval of transport prongs 1 and 2 

for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as further support for the state having met the interstate 

transport requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS since NO2 (as an indicator of all NOx compounds) is a 

precursor of both ozone and PM2.5. 

California’s 2014 Submittal supplements the state’s earlier submittal by evaluating NO2 concentrations 

measured from 2010-2012 at monitors in other states located within 65 km of California’s borders and 

concludes that the data provide further support that California does not cause any NO2 transport impact. 

The monitors include one monitor in Reno, Nevada and two monitors in Las Vegas, Nevada whose 

design values (e.g., highest 1-hour NO2 value of 60 ppb, and highest annual NO2 value of 17 ppb) do not 

exceed the 1-hour and annual NO2 standards of 100 ppb and 53 ppb, respectively. 

EPA’s evaluation 

As described above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will 

significantly contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states (i.e., “prong 1”) or that will 

interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states (i.e., “prong 2”). We evaluated California’s 

submittals in two parts. First, we assessed whether or not NO2 concentrations at monitors in nearby 

states recorded violations of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS or might be expected to violate the NAAQS (i.e., 

have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS). Then we reviewed examples of NOx emission limits in the 

California SIP to assess California’s statements regarding its programs to reduce NOx emissions. 

California correctly asserts that no area in the nation has been designated as nonattainment for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. Nor, indeed, have there been any violations of the 1-hour or annual NO2 standards during 
6 

recent years (i.e., 2011-2013) at monitors in nearby states (i.e., Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon).9 These 

factors support California’s assertion that the state does not significantly contribute to nonattainment in 

other states because no such violations of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS have been found. California’s 2014 

Submittal used a perimeter within 65 km from California’s borders, which captured monitors in Reno, 

Nevada and Las Vegas, Nevada. At each of the monitors in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon, NO2 levels 

were well below the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Regarding NOx emission limits, the California SIP includes numerous requirements for emissions limits 

including rules to address mobile emission sources and their fuels, areas sources, and stationary 

sources.10 California’s 2014 Submittal cites State Regulation 13 CCR 1956.8 (“Exhaust Emissions 

Standards and Test Procedures – 1985 & Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles”) and 

Mojave Desert air district Rule 1161 (“Portland Cement Kilns”) as examples of mobile source and 

stationary source regulations that limit NOx emissions. Such rules have led to a significant decline in 

ambient NO2 levels. For instance, the annual NO2 design value concentration in the South Coast air 

basin has decreased from above 90 ppb in 1970 to less than 25 ppb by 2012.11

However, California’s reference to EPA’s approval of transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as support for meeting the interstate transport requirements for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS is irrelevant. The question at hand is whether NOx emissions from California sources adversely 

affect NO2 concentrations in other states. The question of the effect of NOx emissions on ozone or PM2.5

concentrations in other states would be addressed by analyses and rulemaking on transport SIPs for a 

particular ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS precisely because NOx are precursors to each pollutant. Furthermore, 

EPA approval of transport SIPs for a given NAAQS (e.g., 1997 ozone) is not an adequate analytical 

basis for transport SIPs for a subsequent NAAQS for the same pollutant (e.g., 2008 ozone) because the 

level of the standard is typically more stringent and because emissions vary over time. 

Notwithstanding this clarification, based on the combination of current NO2 levels observed in 

California and its surrounding states and the numerous state and air district regulations to control NOx

emissions, we do not expect NOx emissions from California to increase significantly. Similarly, we do 

not expect monitors in adjacent states, all of which have design values well below the NO2 NAAQS, to 

have difficulty maintaining the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Therefore, we conclude that California NOx

emission sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in other 

states nor do they interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. Thus, the California’s SIP 

includes adequate provisions to comply with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Interstate Transport (Prong 3)

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will interfere with other state’s 

measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (i.e., “prong 3”). We present our evaluation of 

transport prong 3 in our Permit Programs TSD, which accompanies this TSD, given the reliance of our 

evaluation of prong 3 on California’s major source preconstruction programs (e.g., PSD permit 

programs). 

 

9 See Appendix B.1 and B.2 to this TSD. 

10 Regulations to control NOx emissions can be viewed on EPA Region 9’s SIP website for California: 

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

11 See Appendix C to this TSD. U.S. EPA Region 9 Air Quality Trends, 1970-2012, Annual Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Design 

Value Concentrations by Designated Area, updated July 15, 2013. 
7 

Interstate Transport (Prong 4)

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2014 Submittal, 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 for the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 Pb NAAQS, refers to EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance, which states that, in general, transport prong 4 may be satisfied by a SIP-approved regional 

haze plan.12 It also cites EPA approval of California’s regional haze plan,13 which is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/reghaze/reghaze.htm, and asserts that the plan “satisfies the Prong 4 

requirements for ozone, PM2.5, NO2, and SO2.” California’s 2012 Submittal also makes this assertion for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.14 California’s 2012 and 2014 Submittals each refer to EPA’s approval of 

California’s prior submittal for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for transport prong 4. Lastly, 

California’s 2011 Submittal states that EPA “has determined that lead sources have an insignificant 

impact on visibility,” and notes that California has a SIP-approved regional haze plan.15 The latter 

submittal also includes examples, with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), of Pb emission limits in 

California that have been approved into the California SIP, including State Regulation 13 CCR 2250-

2297 (Lead in Gasoline) and South Coast air district Rule 1420.1 (“Emissions Standard for Lead from 

Large Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities”).16

EPA’s evaluation 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will interfere with other states’ 

measures to protect visibility (i.e., “prong 4”). We have broken our evaluation into two sections. The 

first deals with California’s submittals with respect to the relevant NAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, NO2, and 

SO2. The second deals with the transport prong 4 requirements for Pb, given the differences in its 

physical properties relative to other NAAQS pollutants. 

As noted by California, the transport prong 4 requirement may be satisfied by a SIP-approved regional 

haze program since “a fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under 

an air agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air 

agencies’ plans to protect visibility.”17 This applies to several pollutants that affect visibility, including 

ozone, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2. It also notes that if a state’s 5-year progress report indicates a deficiency 

with respect to reasonable progress towards natural visibility, such a deficiency should be explained 

with respect to transport prong 4. California made its 5-year progress report submittal on June 16, 2014 

and it did not identify any such deficiency. We have proposed to approve this report.18

Beyond a simple reference to California’s regional haze plan, we note that several specific elements of 

that plan ensure that emissions from California will not interfere with the reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring states’ Class I areas, including chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 

Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation). On the basis of California’s SIP-approved regional 

haze program, we propose to find that the California SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit 

 

12 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. 17 and 19. 

13 76 FR 34608, June 14, 2011 and 76 FR 43149, July 20, 2011. 

14 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, p. A-7. 

15 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-6. 

16 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, p. 7. 

17 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 33. 

18 The pre-publication copy of our proposed rule on California’s 5-year regional haze progress report, signed on September 

17, 2014, is included in the docket of our proposed rule. 
8 

emissions of ozone, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2 and their precursors (e.g., NOx as ozone precursors) that will 

interfere with other states’ measures to protect visibility. 

For Pb in particular, EPA’s 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance states that Pb generally comprises a small 

fraction of coarse and fine PM (both of which may affect visibility) and that EPA anticipated that Pb 

emissions would contribute only negligibly to visibility impairment at Class I areas.19 Such guidance is 

reiterated in EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance.20 In light of the negligible contribution of Pb to 

visibility, the low levels of Pb monitored at most locations, and on the basis of California’s SIPapproved regional haze plan, as cited in California’s 2011 Submittal, and the SIP-approved emission 

limits for Pb, such as those for Pb in gasoline, we propose to find that the California SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prohibit Pb emissions that will interfere with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility. 

Interstate and International Pollution Abatement

California’s response to this requirement 

Most of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals did not explicitly address CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), though in some cases they did draw conclusions for the section 110(a)(2)(D) interstate 

transport requirements as a whole. By contrast, California’s 2014 Submittal explicitly addressed section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and, as it provided new submittals for several NAAQS and supplemented the prior 

submittals relevant to this TSD, is applicable to each NAAQS treated by this TSD.21 With respect to the 

interstate pollution abatement provisions of CAA section 126, it asserts that no petitions have been filed 

by other states against California regarding emissions from any source or group of stationary sources 

that cause or would cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS in the petitioning state. With respect 

to the international pollution abatement provisions of CAA section 115, it states that the EPA 

Administrator has not made any findings that California causes or contributes to air pollution in a 

foreign country that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 

EPA’s evaluation 

Section 126 (“Interstate pollution abatement”) 

With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement, we note that the 

requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which pertain to petitions by affected states to EPA regarding 

sources violating the “interstate transport” provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), do not apply to 

our action because there are no such pending petitions relating to California. In other words, we concur 

with California’s 2014 Submittal in this regard. We thus evaluated California’s 2014 Submittal only for 

purposes of compliance with section 126(a). 

Section 126(a) requires that each SIP require that proposed, major new or modified sources, which may 

significantly contribute to violations of the NAAQS in any air quality control region in other states, to 

notify all potentially affected, nearby states. Many of California’s 35 permitting jurisdictions (i.e., air 

districts) have SIP-approved PSD permit programs that require notice to nearby states consistent with 

 

19 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 9. 

20 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 33. 

21 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. 19-20. 
9 

EPA’s relevant requirements. Specifically, the following air districts meet the requirements of section 

126(a):22

· Eastern Kern 

· Imperial County 

· Mendocino County 

· Monterey Bay Unified 

· North Coast Unified 

· Northern Sonoma County 

· Placer County 

· Sacramento Metropolitan 

· San Joaquin Valley 

· Yolo-Solano 

The remaining air districts do not have SIP-approved PSD programs, with the exception of South Coast 

air district, which has a SIP-approved PSD program for greenhouse gases only. Thus, California remains 

deficient with respect to the PSD requirements in part C, title I of the Act and with respect to the 

requirement in CAA section 126(a) regarding notification to affected, nearby states of major new or 

modified sources proposing to locate in these remaining air districts. These deficiencies are, however, 

adequately addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutants in such air districts by the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 and no further action is required. 

For these reasons, we propose to find that the California SIP partially meets, and partially does not meet 

the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable interstate 

pollution abatement requirements of section 126. 

Section 115 (“International air pollution”) 

CAA section 115 authorizes the EPA Administrator to require a state to revise its SIP when certain 

criteria are met and the Administrator has reason to believe that any air pollutant emitted in the United 

States causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 

health or welfare in a foreign country. The Administrator may do so by giving formal notification to the 

Governor of the State in which the emissions originate. Because no such formal notification has been 

made with respect to emissions originating in California, as noted in California’s 2014 Submittal, EPA 

has no reason to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115. EPA 

thus proposes to find that the existing California SIP is sufficient to satisfy the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115. 

 

22 Note: This list of air districts having SIP-approved PSD permit programs pertains just to the notification requirements in 40 

CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv). Please refer to our Permit Programs TSD for our evaluation of other PSD requirements, such as PM2.5

increments, as applicable to infrastructure SIP requirements that rely on PSD programs, such as CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).