California Infrastructure SIP 

Permit Programs 

Technical Support Document 

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

programs (only), (D)(i)(II)/interstate transport and prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) (only), (J)/PSD (only), and (L)/permit fees

U.S. EPA, Region 9 

September 2014 
1 

Table of Contents 

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

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

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) – Permit Programs (only) ................................................................. 2

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) – Interstate Transport and PSD (only) .................................. 10

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – PSD (only).................................................................................... 17

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L) – Permit Fees.................................................................................. 18

Summary 

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, subpart I (“Review of New 

Sources and Modifications”). In the following pages, we describe the requirements, summarize 

California’s submittals, and present our evaluation for each infrastructure SIP element related to permit 

programs. 

There are several infrastructure SIP requirements that rely on permit programs, including the following 

CAA sections: 

· Section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires, in part, that the SIP include a program to provide for 

regulation of the construction and modification of new sources (i.e., prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and minor new source review (NSR) programs),1

· Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with other states’ measures to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality (herein referred to as “interstate transport prong 3”), 

· Section 110(a)(2)(J), which requires, in part, that the SIP meet the applicable PSD requirements, 

and 

· Section 110(a)(2)(L), which requires that the SIP require owners and operators of stationary 

sources to pay sufficient fees to the permit authority to obtain, implement, and enforce permits. 

We have consolidated our evaluation of these requirements in this technical support document (TSD) 

since they are closely interconnected and, for the first three sections listed above, rely on the state’s PSD 

permit programs. Given the large number of stationary source permitting authorities in California (i.e., 

35 air districts) and the extent and complexity of nonattainment designations for ozone and PM2.5 in the 

state, we have endeavored to create a clear representation of the status of each air district’s permit 

programs.2 We have evaluated the adequacy of the permit programs according to certain “structural” 

elements that are necessary for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2), as identified in each respective 

section below. 

We have concluded that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the California SIP mostly meet 

the infrastructure SIP requirements for permit programs required under Section 110(a)(2). For those 

PSD requirements that have not been met via a SIP-approved permit program, most are adequately 

addressed by a PSD federal implementation plan (FIP) that has already been promulgated, and therefore 

would not trigger any new obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP. For a small number of districts 

 

1

 EPA is not evaluating CAA title I, part D nonattainment area requirements (i.e., nonattainment NSR) for purposes of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) because these SIPs are due on a separate schedule under CAA section 172(b). 

2 See Appendices A.1 (for ozone) and A.2 (for fine particulate matter (PM2.5)) to this TSD for maps that overlay 

nonattainment areas, PSD program status, and air district boundaries. 
2 

where the PSD requirements have not been met with respect to certain fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

requirements and which are not already addressed by a FIP, finalization of our proposed partial 

disapprovals would either trigger a new two-year FIP deadline or be subject to an existing FIP deadline 

triggered by a prior disapproval. Similarly, for the few air districts that do not have SIP-approved minor 

NSR programs, finalization of our proposed disapprovals would trigger a new two-year FIP deadline.

Please refer to our Overarching TSD, which accompanies this TSD, for our general summary and 

background of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, which national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) those submittals address, and references to applicable EPA guidance memos. In particular, 

the abbreviations for submittals and guidance titles (e.g., California’s 2014 Submittal, 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance, etc.) are incorporated by reference into this TSD. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) – Permit Programs (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” [i.e., new source review (NSR)] “within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of title I 

of the Act.” 

Herein we are only evaluating California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the CAA, Title 

I, part C requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C). For discussion of the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

for a program for enforcement of control measures, please refer to our Overarching TSD. 

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

of the modification and construction of stationary sources, EPA is evaluating certain “structural” 

elements of the state’s PSD programs under CAA title 1, part C to determine whether these programs are 

adequate for infrastructure SIP purposes. In particular, EPA evaluated the California SIP and a recent 

rulemaking proposal on Monterey Bay Unified APCD’s PSD SIP revision to determine whether they 

contained the following required elements of a PSD program which were most recently revised by EPA: 

(1) Ozone: Provisions identifying nitrogen oxides (NOx) as ozone precursors consistent with the 

requirements of EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,3

(2) PM2.5: Provisions to regulate PM2.5, including condensable PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, 

consistent with the requirements of EPA’s NSR implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS,4

(3) PM2.5: Provisions to regulate PSD increments consistent with the requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rule for PM2.5,

5

and 

(4) GHGs: Provisions to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) consistent with EPA’s regulations and a 

recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, as discussed below. 

Regarding GHGs, EPA established that beginning on January 2, 2011, new or modified sources of GHG 

emissions at or above certain thresholds are required to seek PSD permits. Four of these actions include, 

 

3 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005. Codified at 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(49)(i)(b)(1). 

4 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008. Codified at 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(49)(i). 

5 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010. Codified at 40 CFR 51.166(c). 
3 

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

EPA issued in a single final action,6the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,”7the “Light-Duty Vehicle 

Rule,”8and the “Tailoring Rule.”9 Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 

engines; determined that such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs 

emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD requirements 

to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. 

However, on June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG emissions.10 The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as 

an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD 

permit. The Court also said that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required 

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

application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision, EPA is not currently applying EPA regulations that would require 

that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, 

EPA is not requiring that a state’s SIP-approved PSD program require sources to obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major 

source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net 

emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)).11 

Generally, section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires that an infrastructure SIP contain SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR and minor NSR programs adequate to implement these standards. EPA is assessing 

the status of California’s minor NSR programs. However, EPA is not evaluating CAA title I, part D 

nonattainment area requirements (such as the nonattainment NSR program) in this proposed action for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(C) because these SIPs are due on a separate schedule under CAA section 

172(b). Thus, our evaluation section below includes sub-sections for PSD and minor NSR. 

 

6

“Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” 74 FR 

66496, December 15, 2009. 

7

“Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.” 75 FR 17004, 

April 2, 2010. 

8

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

75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 

9

“Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.” 75 FR 31514, June 3, 

2010. 

10 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427. 

11 As explained further below, EPA has determined that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals are sufficient to satisfy 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for 11 districts that have SIP-approved PSD programs with respect to GHGs 

because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits 

(otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the 

application of BACT. Although the SIP-approved PSD permitting programs for these 11 air districts in California may 

currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the 

infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for these air districts. The SIP 

contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time for these 11 districts, and the application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA 

does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision 

does not affect EPA’s proposed partial approval of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). 
4 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007 Submittal states that the local air districts are responsible for permitting stationary 

sources, including PSD and nonattainment NSR programs, and that California Health and Safety Code 

(HSC) section 39002 grants ARB the authority to undertake control activities (e.g., stationary source 

permitting) if it determines that a district has failed its responsibility.12 California’s 2011 Submittal 

refines this statement by noting that as of 2011 five air districts (Mendocino County, Monterey Bay 

Unified, North Coast Unified, Northern Sonoma County, and Sacramento Metropolitan (Metro)) had 

SIP-approved PSD programs, including coverage of GHGs, two air districts (Bay Area AQMD and 

South Coast AQMD) have delegation agreements for their PSD permit programs, and all other districts 

were subject to a PSD FIP administered by EPA.13 It also notes HSC section 40000 as the state statute 

that grants air districts stationary source permitting authority, and that the Los Angeles County portion 

of the South Coast Air Basin is the only area designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and 

therefore subject to nonattainment NSR for Pb. All other areas are subject to the PSD program 

requirements for Pb. 

California’s 2012 Submittal notes that all areas in California are designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS and therefore subject to PSD program requirements for NO2.

14 It also states that 

ARB and the air districts cooperate through the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 

(CAPCOA) to develop information, tools, and stationary source modeling recommendations for 

ensuring that proposed new or modified sources comply with the NAAQS, such as their document 

entitled “Modeling Compliance of the Federal 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS.” The submittal provides a table 

that describes the NO2 provisions (e.g., major source threshold) for the five air districts with SIPapproved PSD programs, a PSD SIP revision for San Joaquin Valley APCD that was pending final 

approval by EPA, and a table that describes the status of PSD rule development and EPA action for 14 

other districts.15

California’s 2014 Submittal reflects the current status of California’s PSD programs for all regulated 

NSR pollutants, including GHGs and includes a discussion of minor NSR.16 Broadly, this submittal 

highlights that PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements overlap consistent with an area’s designation 

status for each pollutant and that the nonattainment NSR requirements for ozone nonattainment areas 

become increasingly more stringent with higher classifications. With respect to PSD, California’s 2014 

Submittal notes that PSD permitting applies statewide for NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and CO (i.e., since 

no area is designated nonattainment under the federal CAA for these air pollutants), and that PSD 

permitting applies in selected areas for ozone, PM2.5, and Pb, consistent with each area’s designation. 

Table 6 of the submittal provides a summary of California’s fully or partially SIP-approved PSD 

programs for 11 air districts and program delegations (of portions of the PSD FIP) for three air districts 

as of 2013. Table 7, in turn, provides a summary of the status of PSD rule development and approval for 

eight additional districts. 

Regarding minor NSR, the submittal states that stationary source projects below the PSD and 

nonattainment NSR permitting thresholds may be subject to minor NSR programs that are intended to 

prevent construction of sources that would interfere with NAAQS compliance or violate provisions of a 

nonattainment area control strategy, and that often contain emission limits to avoid such sources being 

 

12 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, pp. 2-3. 

13 California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, pp. A-4 to A-5. See Table A-3 on p. A-5 for a listing of the SIP-approved PSD 

programs and the significance level for Pb within each program. 

14 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. A-3 to A-6. 

15 Id., Tables A-2 and A-3, respectively. 

16 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. 13-17. 
5 

permitted as major sources. All minor NSR permits and nonattainment NSR permits are issued by the air 

districts, while PSD sources are permitted by the air districts, EPA, or a combination thereof depending 

upon the PSD SIP approval status. The submittal also explains that the responsibility and authority of 

the air districts to regulate stationary sources, which stem from HSC sections 39002, 40000, and 

40001(a), extend to implementation of minor NSR programs. The submittal asserts that all 35 air 

districts implement minor NSR programs, that they are equally or more stringent than federal 

regulations require, and that many such programs are SIP-approved. It also provides a link to ARB’s 

listing of the air districts’ NSR rules (http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/dtvr.htm). 

EPA’s evaluation 

PSD 

Area designations promulgated by EPA define which areas of the state are subject to PSD requirements 

under CAA title I, part C (i.e., unclassifiable/attainment areas), or subject to the nonattainment NSR 

requirements under part D (i.e., nonattainment areas), with respect to any given NAAQS. Parts of the 

state have been designated nonattainment for the NAAQS, as follows:17

· 1997 ozone – 15 areas including 20 districts 

· 2008 ozone – 16 areas including 22 districts 

· 1997 PM2.5 – 2 areas including 2 districts 

· 2006 PM2.5 – 7 areas including 10 districts 

· 2008 Pb – 1 area including 1 district 

No part of California has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) NAAQS, or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Note, however, that EPA has issued a letter to California 

indicating that we agree with the state’s recommendation to designate four areas of the state as 

nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and that such designations are forthcoming.18

While California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals have informed our evaluation of the state’s provisions 

for CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), in the years and months since submittal, additional PSD permit program 

requirements have come due, SIP revisions have been made by several districts, and EPA has acted on 

several such revisions. Thus, we have evaluated the status of each air district’s compliance with the PSD 

implementation requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, including GHGs.19 We present our 

summary of that evaluation below. For those air districts that we propose to partially disapprove for 

section 110(a)(2)(C), we explain the consequences of finalizing such proposed disapprovals for each 

applicable air district. Given the complexities of stationary source permitting in California, we have 

organized our evaluation in the following order: 

i. 7 Districts meet the “structural” PSD elements, 

ii. 4 Districts partially meet the “structural” PSD elements, 

iii. 8 Districts are subject to a PSD FIP and have made PSD SIP submittals, and 

iv. 16 Districts are subject to a PSD FIP and have not made PSD SIP submittals. 

 

17 See Appendix B to this TSD for a worksheet that provides a listing, rule citation, and Federal Register citation for each of 

the 22 air districts that have been wholly or partially designated nonattainment for ozone, PM2.5, or Pb. Also, note that the 

nonattainment area count in this TSD and in Appendix B do not reflect areas of Indian country within California that are 

separately designated nonattainment. 

18 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 to Governor Edmund J. Brown, California dated 

August 19, 2014. 

19 See Appendix C to this TSD for a worksheet that provides a listing, rule citation, and Federal Register citation for each of 

the 11 air districts that have fully or partially SIP-approved PSD programs that meet all or some of the “structural” elements 

for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2). 
6 

We note that for areas subject to the PSD FIP codified at 40 CFR 52.21, EPA’s revisions to the PSD FIP 

for implementing the ozone NAAQS (including regulation of NOx as an ozone precursor) became 

effective January 30, 2006.20 Similarly, EPA’s revisions to the PSD FIP for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS have applied since July 15, 2008 21 and December 20, 2010.22

i. 7 Districts meet the “structural” PSD elements 

Six air districts have SIP-approved PSD programs that address the “structural” PSD elements: Eastern 

Kern, Imperial County, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano. These 

meet the PSD requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C). For one additional district, Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD, we have proposed to approve a PSD SIP revision that meets the “structural” PSD 

elements for section 110(a)(2)(C).23

However, in the alternative event that we are not able to finalize our proposed action on Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD’s PSD SIP revision prior to finalizing action on California’s Infrastructure SIPs, we note 

that the district’s current SIP-approved PSD program does not specify requirements for the regulation of 

PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or PSD increments for PM2.5. Thus, in this alternative, 

Monterey Bay Unified APCD partially meets the “structural” PSD elements, but as the current SIP 

approved PSD program does not address these requirements, we therefore propose to partially approve 

and partially disapprove the district for section 110(a)(2)(C). Finalization of this proposed, partial 

disapproval would establish a deadline 24 months after the effective date of the final rule for EPA to 

promulgate a narrow FIP for the identified PSD requirements for PM2.5 for Monterey Bay Unified 

APCD. 

ii. 4 Districts partially meet the “structural” PSD elements 

One air district, South Coast AQMD, has a SIP-approved PSD program for GHGs but is subject to a 

PSD FIP for all other regulated NSR pollutants.24 Thus, South Coast AQMD meets the “structural” PSD 

element for GHGs only, and we propose to partially approve the infrastructure SIP as to that district. We 

also propose to partially disapprove the district for section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to all other 

regulated NSR pollutants. However, EPA has already applied the PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21 to South 

Coast AQMD for all other regulated NSR pollutants; thus, finalization of this proposed, partial 

disapproval will not trigger any new obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP. 

Three air districts have SIP-approved PSD programs that generally address the “structural” PSD 

elements, but lack provisions to address certain specific requirements. The PSD program of North Coast 

Unified AQMD does not identify NOx as an ozone precursor and does not specify requirements for the 

 

20 70 FR 71612, 71683, November 29, 2005. 

21 73 FR 28321, 28340, 28343, May 16, 2008. 

22 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010. 

23 The pre-publication copy of our proposed rule on Monterey Bay Unified APCD’s PSD SIP revision, signed on September 

30, 2014, is included in the docket of our proposed rule. 

24 Note that South Coast AQMD and Bay Area AQMD have each been partially delegated authority to implement the PSD 

FIPs that apply to each respective air district. See Delegation letters between EPA and South Coast AQMD and between EPA 

and Bay Area AQMD, dated July 25, 2007 and March 8, 2011, respectively, which are included in the docket of our proposed 

rule. However, until a state adopts and submits a PSD program for EPA approval that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants, 

including GHGs, its SIP is not approvable with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, while these two districts 

implement their applicable PSD FIPs, the California SIP does not contain adequate provisions to meet the PSD requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C). 
7 

regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or PSD increments for PM2.5. Thus, North 

Coast Unified AQMD partially meets the “structural” PSD elements, but as the district has not addressed 

certain requirements, we propose to partially approve and partially disapprove the district for section 

110(a)(2)(C). EPA promulgated a narrow PSD FIP in 2012 to address the requirement to identify NOx as 

an ozone precursor.25 Thus, finalization of this proposed partial disapproval will not trigger any new 

obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP as to that requirement. With respect to the PM2.5 deficiencies, 

EPA recently issued a finding of failure to submit a PSD SIP revision for North Coast Unified AQMD to 

address the lack of provisions for PSD increments for PM2.5 and set a deadline of October 2, 2016 for 

EPA to promulgate a narrow FIP addressing these requirements, unless the state submits, and EPA 

approves, an adequate SIP revision prior to that date.26 Thus, finalization of the proposed partial 

disapproval for section 110(a)(2)(C) will not trigger any additional deadline for EPA to promulgate a 

FIP for these requirements. However, no FIP deadline has been set for the requirements for regulation of 

PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, and condensable PM2.5. Thus, finalization of this proposed, partial disapproval 

would establish a deadline 24 months after the effective date of the final rule for EPA to promulgate a 

narrow FIP to regulate PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, and condensable PM2.5 for North Coast Unified AQMD. 

Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD each have PSD programs that 

generally address the “structural” PSD elements, but do not specify requirements for a baseline date for 

PSD increments for PM2.5. Thus, Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD 

partially meet the “structural” PSD elements, but as each district has not addressed this PM2.5 PSD 

increment requirement, we propose to partially approve and partially disapprove each district for section 

110(a)(2)(C). No FIP deadline has been set for EPA to address these issues. Thus, finalization of this 

proposed partial disapproval would establish a deadline 24 months after the effective date of the final 

rule for EPA to promulgate a narrow FIP for the requirement for a baseline date for PSD increments for 

PM2.5 for Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD. 

iii. 8 Districts are subject to a PSD FIP and have made PSD SIP submittals 

Six air districts are currently subject to the PSD FIP and have made PSD SIP submittals in 2013 or 2014 

that are pending action by EPA, including the Bay Area, Butte County, Feather River, Great Basin 

Unified, San Diego County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County air 

districts.27 Since EPA has not proposed or finalized approval of these SIP revisions to date, we propose 

to partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(C) for these six 

air districts. However, EPA has already applied the PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21 to each of these districts; 

thus, finalization of this proposed partial disapproval will not trigger any new obligation for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP. 

Notwithstanding these conclusions, we anticipate proposing or taking final action on some or all of these 

PSD SIP submittals over the coming months. To the extent that each submittal meets the “structural” 

PSD elements for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(C), such actions would include re-proposals to approve 

these air districts for section 110(a)(2)(C) prior to our final rule on California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals. 

 

25 76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011. 

26 79 FR 51913, September 2, 2014. 

27 The submittal dates for these PSD SIP revisions are as follows: August 23, 2011 (Ventura County APCD), February 6, 

2013 (Butte County AQMD, Great Basin Unified APCD, and San Diego County APCD), April 22, 2013 (Bay Area AQMD 

and Feather River AQMD), February 10, 2014 (Santa Barbara County APCD), and May 13, 2014 (San Luis Obispo County 

APCD). Note that Ventura County APCD is currently revising Rule 26.13, which is expected to be submitted to replace the 

district’s August 23, 2011 PSD SIP submittal. 
8 

iv. 16 Districts are subject to a PSD FIP and have not made PSD SIP submittals 

Eighteen air districts are currently subject to the PSD FIP and will continue to be, at least in the nearterm future: Amador County, Antelope Valley, Calaveras County, Colusa County, El Dorado County, 

Glenn County, Lake County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, 

Northern Sierra, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, Tehama County, and Tuolumne County air districts. 

Therefore, we propose to partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 

110(a)(2)(C) for these 18 air districts. However, EPA has already applied the PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21 

to each of these districts; thus, finalization of this proposed, partial disapproval will not trigger any new 

obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP. While we acknowledge, per California’s 2014 Submittal, that 

Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, and Ventura County air districts are currently developing or revising 

rules for future PSD SIP submittals, we do not anticipate that they will be submitted and that EPA will 

take final action on such submittals prior to our final rule on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals. 

Minor NSR 

The applicability of minor NSR to a prospective new or modified stationary source is affected by area 

designations, which set the applicability thresholds for the major source program. For instance, San 

Joaquin Valley is designated as an extreme nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which sets a 

major source threshold (MST) of 10 tons per year (tpy) of nitrogen oxides (NOx) or volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). Thus, San Joaquin Valley APCD’s minor NSR program would apply only to new 

or modified stationary sources that will emit less than 10 tpy of NOx or VOC down to the de minimus 

threshold set by the district. By contrast, the minor NSR program in an area that is attaining the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, such as Great Basin Unified APCD, would apply to new or modified stationary sources 

that will emit less than 100 tpy or 250 tpy, depending on the source categories specified in 40 CFR 

51.166. Overall, a large portion of the state falls under a similar scenario to San Joaquin Valley by virtue 

of nonattainment designation and classification for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This 

results in significantly lower MST and significant emission rates (SER) for NOx and VOCs, including 

the following areas listed with population (Pop.) per the 2010 U.S. Census: 

· Extreme areas (Pop.: 19,561,850; MST: 10 tpy; SER: 0 tpy): 

o Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin – a portion of South Coast AQMD, and 

o San Joaquin Valley – whole of San Joaquin Valley APCD. 

· Severe areas (Pop.: 3,535,243; MST: 25 tpy; SER: 25 tpy): 

o Los Angeles-San Bernardino (West Mojave Desert) – whole of Antelope Valley AQMD 

and a portion of Mojave Desert AQMD, 

o Riverside County (Coachella Valley) – portion of South Coast AQMD, and 

o Sacramento Metro – whole of Sacramento Metro AQMD and portions of El Dorado 

County, Feather River, Placer County, and Yolo-Solano air districts. 

· Serious area (Pop.: 823,262; MST: 50 tpy; SER: 25 tpy): 

o Ventura County – whole of Ventura County APCD. 

As discussed in EPA’s 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance,28 we interpret section 110(a)(2)(C) as 

requiring SIPs to include a program for the regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor 

 

28 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 24. 
9 

modifications of major sources, herein referred to as “minor NSR.” It also encourages states, in their 

infrastructure SIP submittals, to identify their existing SIP-approved provisions governing minor NSR 

that regulate emissions of the relevant pollutants. We have reviewed California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals and the California SIP to assess the existence of SIP-approved minor NSR programs that 

apply to the NAAQS pollutants treated by this TSD (i.e., ozone, PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and SO2). 

The vast majority of the 35 air districts – 30 in total – have SIP-approved programs for minor NSR that 

apply to the NAAQS treated by this TSD (i.e., ozone, PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and SO2).29 These programs 

require minor sources to obtain an Authority to Construct permit prior to construction and cover all 

NAAQS either through a broad definition of air contaminants or regulated air pollutants that includes 

the NAAQS and their precursors, or by applying the programs to regulated NSR pollutants, which also 

includes the NAAQS and their precursors. For example: 

· Bay Area AQMD Regulation 2-1-301 requires all “major facilities” (defined as those having “the 

potential to emit 10 [tpy] or more of any regulated air pollutant,” per Regulation 2-6-212) to go 

through permit review prior to issuance of an Authority to Construct permit, while Regulation 2-

6-222 defines “regulated air pollutant” to include NOx, VOCs, and the NAAQS pollutants,30

· Sacramento Metro AQMD Rule 201 section 301 requires the control officer to issue an Authority 

to Construct permit to a prospective source that may emit air contaminants, which include the 

NAAQS pollutants and its precursors,31

· San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 2010, section 3.0 requires anyone building, altering, or replacing 

a source that may emit air contaminants, which include the NAAQS pollutants and its precursors, 

to obtain an Authority to Construct permit,32 and 

· Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 3.01, section 301 prohibits the building, erection, alteration, or 

replacement of a source that may emit air contaminants, which include the NAAQS pollutants 

and its precursors, without first obtaining an Authority to Construct permit.33

We propose to partially approve California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the minor NSR 

requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for these 30 air districts. In addition, in one of these 30 

districts, Placer County APCD, the SIP-approved minor NSR programs pertain to each of three subareas within the district (Lake Tahoe, Mountain Counties, and Sacramento Valley air basins) and the 

district submitted a SIP revision of a district-wide rule on December 7, 2010 that would replace the rules 

of the sub-areas for purposes of minor NSR. Such a SIP revision, if approved, will provide continuity 

and updates to the district’s SIP-approved minor NSR program, and represents the kind of periodic SIP 

revision that keeps the California SIP up to date for purposes of the minor NSR requirement of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C). 

The five remaining air districts (Lake County, Mariposa County, Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra,34 and 

Tuolumne County) have minor NSR programs that establish similar requirements, but they have not 

been submitted and approved into the California SIP as required for CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Thus, 

 

29 See Appendix D to this TSD for a worksheet that provides a listing, rule citation, and Federal Register citation for each of 

the 30 air districts that have SIP-approved minor NSR programs. 

30 60 FR 32606, June 23, 1995. Note that Bay Area AQMD’s new permit rule SIP submittal of April 22, 2013 includes 

revisions to the district’s PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR programs. 

31 52 FR 26148, July 13, 1987. 

32 64 FR 39920, July 23, 1999. 

33 62 FR 36214, July 7, 1997. 

34 Note that Northern Sierra AQMD comprises three counties, one of which (Nevada County) has a SIP-approved minor NSR 

program while the other two (Plumas and Sierra counties) do not. Thus, our conclusion on the absence of a SIP-approved 

minor NSR program pertains only to these two counties within Northern Sierra AQMD. 
10 

we propose to partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the minor 

NSR requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for these five air districts. Finalization of the proposed 

partial disapproval will trigger the obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP within 24 months of the 

effective date of the final rule unless the district and state submit, and EPA approves, an adequate SIP 

revision prior to that date. EPA is prepared to work with ARB and the air districts to revise, as 

necessary, and submit such minor NSR programs for incorporation into the California SIP. 

Conclusion 

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

major sources (i.e., PSD) and minor sources (i.e., minor NSR) under CAA title I, part C, we propose to 

partially approve and partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, as discussed above. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) – Interstate Transport and PSD (only) 

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—... 

(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.... 

Herein we are only evaluating California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that pertain to other states’ measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality (i.e., interstate transport prong 3). For discussion of the other interstate 

transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D), please refer to our Interstate Transport TSD, which 

accompanies this TSD. 

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. EPA’s 2006 Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

states that the requirements of interstate transport prong 3 may be met by the state’s confirmation in a 

SIP submission that major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to PSD and 

nonattainment NSR programs that implement the relevant standards.35 EPA’s subsequent guidance 

memos rely or expand upon the legal and technical rationale presented in the 2006 Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance.36

The PSD and nonattainment NSR permit programs require preconstruction permits to protect the air 

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

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

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

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

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

(i.e., PSD increment).37 A nonattainment NSR permit may not be issued unless the new or modified 

source shows it has obtained sufficient emissions reductions to offset increases in emissions of the 

 

35 2006 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 6. 

36 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, pp. 4-5, 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, p. 8, and 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, 

pp. 30-32. 

37 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); 40 CFR 51.166(k). 
11 

pollutants for which an area is designated nonattainment, consistent with reasonable further progress 

toward attainment.38 Because the PSD and nonattainment NSR permitting programs currently applicable 

in each area require a demonstration that new or modified sources will not cause or contribute to air 

pollution in excess of the NAAQS in neighboring states or that sources in nonattainment areas procure 

offsets, states may satisfy the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality by submitting SIPs confirming that major sources and major 

modifications in the state are subject to PSD programs that implement current requirements and 

nonattainment NSR programs that address the NAAQS pollutants for which areas of the state that have 

been designated nonattainment. 

As such, we have evaluated California’s PSD and nonattainment NSR preconstruction permitting 

programs to determine whether these programs implement the NAAQS. We have also evaluated 

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

from PSD sources, as applicable. 

As discussed above for section 110(a)(2)(C), many areas of California have been designated 

nonattainment for one or more of the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. These areas are subject to preconstruction review according to either a nonattainment NSR SIP 

or an interim program under 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S (until such time as a nonattainment NSR SIP 

revision is approved by EPA). Any area designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the NAAQS 

evaluated by this TSD is subject to preconstruction review according to a SIP-approved PSD program or 

the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. EPA may delegate its authority to implement the PSD FIP program to a 

state or district, in which case the state or air district implements the PSD FIP under a delegation 

agreement with EPA, as is the case with Bay Area AQMD and South Coast AQMD. 

Given the extent of nonattainment areas in California, and the role of nonattainment NSR with respect to 

interference with other states’ measures to prevent significant deterioration of air, EPA has reviewed 

California’s nonattainment NSR programs under CAA title 1, part D to determine whether these 

programs generally address the nonattainment pollutants for which areas of the state are designated 

nonattainment. We refer to this aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) herein as the “nonattainment NSR 

element.” We provide further background on designations and nonattainment NSR implementation in 

California for ozone and PM2.5 as follows. 

For areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the submittal deadlines for 

nonattainment NSR SIP revisions stemming from designations and from subsequent reclassifications 

have passed, as follows. EPA’s 2005 final rule for implementation of the 1997 ozone required states to 

submit the relevant nonattainment NSR SIP revisions for nonattainment areas by June 15, 2007.39 Eight 

nonattainment areas in California were initially classified under the ozone nonattainment area 

requirements of CAA title 1, part D, subpart 2 (“Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas”).40 Of these, four areas were reclassified to a higher subpart 2 classification in 2010 (e.g., serious 

to severe).41 The reclassification final rule set a submittal deadline of June 4, 2011 for nonattainment 

 

38 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). 

39 70 FR 71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005. 

40 Note that we are not evaluating the adequacy of California’s nonattainment NSR programs against all applicable 

nonattainment NSR requirements under CAA title I, part D for this proposed action because these SIPs are due on a separate 

schedule under CAA section 172(b) and may not all be necessary to ensure that California prohibits emissions that will 

interfere with other states’ measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality pursuant to CAA section 

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

41 75 FR 24409, May 5, 2010. 
12 

NSR SIP revisions to address the higher classification for the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area 

only, as the other reclassified areas already met the nonattainment NSR SIP requirements of the higher 

classification. In addition, seven areas in California designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS were initially classified under the general nonattainment requirements of CAA title I, part D, 

subpart 1 (“Nonattainment areas in general”) and later reclassified under the ozone nonattainment 

requirements of subpart 2.42 Nonattainment NSR SIP revisions for such areas newly classified under 

subpart 2 were due to be submitted by June 13, 2013. 

By contrast, the submittal deadline for nonattainment NSR SIP revisions for the 16 areas in California 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is July 20, 2015. EPA has proposed a rule for 

implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS that addresses nonattainment NSR.43 However, 14 of these 16 

areas bear the same geographic boundary and subpart 2 classification as areas designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS;44 thus, nonattainment NSR SIP revisions were already due for such areas. 

Accordingly, the nonattainment NSR submittal deadline for 14 of these areas has passed while the 

submittal deadline for the two areas newly designated nonattainment for ozone (i.e., Eastern San Luis 

Obispo County in San Luis Obispo County APCD and Tuscan Buttes in Tehama County APCD) is July 

20, 2015. 

EPA’s 2008 final rule for implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (“2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule”)45

contained requirements for SIPs to implement the PSD and nonattainment NSR provisions and required 

states to submit the relevant PSD and nonattainment NSR SIP revisions by May 16, 2011.46 For areas 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, of which there are two in California (San Joaquin 

Valley and Los Angeles-South Coast), the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule established new requirements under 40 

CFR 51.165 for states to include in their SIP-approved nonattainment NSR programs to address the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA designated nonattainment areas in 2009 under 

the general nonattainment requirements of CAA title I, part D, subpart 1, including seven areas in 

California.47 That final rule set a submittal deadline of December 14, 2012 for nonattainment NSR SIP 

revisions including provisions to regulate PM2.5, condensable PM2.5, and its precursor emissions.48

However, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued EPA to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

under the particular matter (PM) nonattainment requirements of CAA title I, part D, subpart 4 in 

addition to the general requirements of subpart 1.49 As a result of this litigation, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.) remanded the 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule to EPA, finding that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely under the general requirements of subpart 1 

without also considering the PM-specific requirements of subpart 4.50 Accordingly, EPA revised the 

nonattainment classification for each area designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 or 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in 2014 and set a submittal deadline of December 31, 2014 for nonattainment NSR SIP 

revisions implementing these NAAQS under the subpart 4 requirements.51 Thus, nonattainment NSR 

 

42 77 FR 28424, May 14, 2012. 

43 78 FR 34178, 34199-34201, 34212, June 6, 2013. 

44 See Appendix B to this TSD. 

45 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008. 

46 Id. at 28341. 

47 74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009. 

48 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008. Codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), (b)(49). 

49 NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

50 Id. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court also remanded EPA’s broader 2007 implementation rule for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007. 

51 79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014. 
13 

SIP revisions to implement the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA title I, part D, subpart 4 

are not yet due. 

Under 40 CFR 52.24(k), however, until a state amends their existing NSR programs following a new 

designation as nonattainment for a particular NAAQS and EPA approves an appropriate SIP revision, 

the state should rely on the procedures under 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S to issue permits to new or 

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

California’s response to this requirement 

EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of the interstate transport portion of 

California’s November 16, 2007 SIP revision for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect 

to the requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that states prohibit emissions in amounts that will 

interfere with other state’s PSD measures.52 Thus, we do not provide a summary of that submittal here. 

California’s 2011 Submittal addresses the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) 

as a whole, rather than each of the sub-requirements (e.g., interstate transport prong 3) separately.53 It 

asserts that there are only two sources in the state that contribute to violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

both of which are in the Los Angeles County nonattainment area and more than 100 miles from the 

nearest state and international borders. It refers to 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S as setting the setting 

preconstruction review requirements and conditions for such nonattainment areas to ensure that new and 

modified major sources are controlled, offset by other sources, and align with progress towards 

attainment of the NAAQS. California’s 2012 Submittal refers to EPA’s prior partial approval and partial 

disapproval of California’s submittal for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to 

interstate transport prong 3 to the extent that NOx, as indicated by NO2, is a precursor to such air 

pollutants.54

California’s 2014 Submittal states that EPA approved California’s 2007 Submittal with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (i.e., interstate transport prong 3) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. Regarding PSD, the submittal largely refers to California’s discussion of PSD for section 

110(a)(2)(C). Regarding nonattainment NSR, it asserts that each air district designated nonattainment 

under the NAAQS has adopted rules to implement federal nonattainment NSR requirements and that 

many of these are SIP-approved. The submittal concludes that the air districts’ PSD and nonattainment 

NSR programs generally meet the federal requirements for each and therefore the state has met the 

interstate transport prong 3 requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

EPA’s evaluation 

With respect to the interstate transport prong 3 requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of California’s November 16, 2007 

SIP revision for the PSD-related portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that contained a districtspecific accounting of which air districts met or did not meet certain PSD and nonattainment NSR 

requirements.55 Since that time, a number of additional PSD and nonattainment NSR permit program 

requirements have come due, SIP revisions have been made by several districts, and EPA has acted on 

several such revisions. Thus, we propose to revise our evaluation of the status of the air districts’ PSD 

and nonattainment NSR programs for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to reflect these 

 

52 76 FR 48002, August 8, 2011. 

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

54 California’s 2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. A-6 to A-7. 

55 76 FR 48002, August 8, 2011. 
14 

changes. The overall conclusion is the same,56 but the district-specific accounting has changed in an 

overall favorable (i.e., SIP-approved) direction from our 2011 rulemaking with respect to the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For California’s PSD programs, we draw the same conclusions as described in our evaluation of section 

110(a)(2)(C) above. In other words, seven districts meet the “structural” PSD requirements for purposes 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), four districts partially meet such “structural” PSD requirements for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 24 districts are subject to a PSD FIP (including eight that have made 

PSD SIP submittals) and therefore do not meet such “structural” PSD requirements for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Similarly, our description of the consequences of finalizing any proposed 

disapproval relating to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(C), i.e., the existence of an applicable FIP, the prior 

establishment of a FIP deadline, or the establishment of a new FIP deadline, carry over to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Please see our evaluation of PSD for section 110(a)(2)(C) above for a districtspecific accounting. 

For California’s nonattainment NSR programs, we take a similar approach as our PSD evaluation for 

section 110(a)(2)(C). While California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals have informed our evaluation of 

the state’s provisions for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), in the years and months since submittal, 

additional nonattainment NSR permit program requirements have come due, SIP revisions have been 

made by several districts, and EPA has acted on several such revisions. Thus, we have evaluated the 

nonattainment NSR programs of 22 air districts with respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and/or 2008 Pb NAAQS, as applicable.57 We present our summary of that evaluation below. 

Given the complexities of this task, we have organized our evaluation in the following order: 

i. 9 Districts meet the nonattainment NSR element via SIP-approved programs, 

ii. 8 Districts meet the nonattainment NSR element via implementation of 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix S, 

iii. 1 District meets the nonattainment NSR element via a combination of a SIP-approved program 

and implementation of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, 

iv. 2 Districts will be relieved of nonattainment NSR requirements upon revocation of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, and 

v. 2 Districts have until summer 2015 to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions. 

i. 9 Districts meet the nonattainment NSR element via SIP-approved programs 

Nine air districts that are wholly or partially designated nonattainment for ozone and/or PM2.5 meet the 

nonattainment NSR element via SIP-approved programs. We therefore propose to approve California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the following districts listed by 

applicable NAAQS: 

· 1997/2008 ozone only: Antelope Valley, Eastern Kern, Mojave Desert, Placer County, San 

Diego County, and Ventura County air districts, 

 

56 Our 2011 action was a limited approval and limited disapproval as we were acting on just those requirements pertaining to 

interstate transport prong 3. Because this TSD and affiliated proposal cover many more of the section 110(a)(2) requirements 

and our conclusions generally pertain to whole districts, rather than to specific deficiencies within a given district’s CAA 

programs, we instead are proposing a partial approval and partial disapproval. 

57 See Appendix B to this TSD. Note that for air districts that are partially designated nonattainment for a given NAAQS, the 

nonattainment NSR requirements apply only to the portion of the district designated nonattainment, while the PSD 

requirements apply to the portion of the district designated unclassifiable/attainment. This scenario applies to the following 

air districts: Butte County, Eastern Kern, El Dorado County, Feather River, Imperial County, Mojave Desert, Northern 

Sierra, Placer County, San Luis Obispo County, South Coast, Tehama County, and Yolo-Solano. 
15 

· 1997/2008 ozone and 2006 PM2.5: Sacramento Metro AQMD and Feather River AQMD, and 

· 1997/2008 ozone and 1997/2006 PM2.5: San Joaquin Valley APCD. 

With respect to Feather River AQMD, we note that the district has a SIP-approved program for the 

nonattainment NSR requirements for ozone and most of the nonattainment NSR requirements for PM2.5. 

In 2013 EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of the district’s nonattainment NSR 

submittal because the submittal lacked provisions to address condensable PM2.5.

58 Since Feather River 

AQMD must implement the SIP-approved portion of their nonattainment NSR rules, they can’t instead 

rely on the interim nonattainment NSR provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S. This deficiency 

within one district, however, does not in itself render California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

inadequate to satisfy the nonattainment NSR element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In addition, as 

discussed above, EPA recently revised the nonattainment classification for each area designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and set a submittal deadline of December 31, 

2014 for nonattainment NSR SIP revisions implementing these NAAQS under the subpart 4 

requirements.59 Therefore, the submittal deadline for Feather River AQMD’s PM2.5 nonattainment NSR 

revisions has not yet passed.60 For these reasons we propose to include Feather River AQMD among 

those districts that meet the nonattainment NSR element via SIP-approved program. 

i. 8 Districts meet the nonattainment NSR element via implementation of 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix S 

Eight air districts that are wholly or partially designated nonattainment for ozone and/or PM2.5

implement the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S and have sent letters 

to EPA affirming as much.61 We propose to partially approve California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the following air districts listed by applicable NAAQS: 

· 1997/2008 ozone only: Calaveras County, Mariposa County, and Northern Sierra air districts, 

· 1997/2008 ozone and 2006 PM2.5: Bay Area, Butte County, El Dorado County, Imperial County, 

Yolo-Solano air districts, and 

Notwithstanding these conclusions, Bay Area, Butte County, Imperial County, and South Coast air 

districts have each submitted SIP revisions to address some or all of the outstanding nonattainment NSR 

requirements.62 We anticipate proposing or taking final action on some or all of these four SIP 

submittals over the coming months. To the extent that each submittal meets the applicable 

nonattainment NSR requirements, we propose that such actions would alter the basis of our proposed 

approval of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the nonattainment NSR element of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (i.e., having SIP-approved nonattainment NSR provisions rather than relying 

on 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S) while maintaining the proposed approval itself. 

 

58 78 FR 58460, September 24, 2013. 

59 79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014. 

60 Feather River AQMD has issued public notice of further nonattainment NSR SIP revisions, including provisions to 

regulate condensable PM2.5, to be presented for board adoption on October 6, 2014. See Feather River AQMD Notice of 

Public Hearing, dated August 28, 2014. 

61 See Letters affirming implementation of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, sent to EPA by the following air districts on the 

dates indicated: Bay Area (October 28, 2009), Butte County (July 11, 2014), Calaveras County (July 10, 2014), El Dorado 

County (July 18, 2014), Imperial County (July 15, 2014), Mariposa County (July 15, 2014), Northern Sierra (July 9, 2014), 

and Yolo-Solano (July 23, 2014). 

62 The submittal dates for these nonattainment NSR SIP revisions by air district are as follows: September 27, 2011 (South 

Coast), February 6, 2013 (Butte County), April 22, 2013 (Bay Area), and January 21, 2014 (Imperial County). 
16 

ii. 1 District meets the nonattainment NSR element via a combination of a SIP-approved 

program and implementation of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, 

South Coast AQMD is partially designated nonattainment for ozone, PM2.5, and Pb. For ozone and Pb, 

the district meets the nonattainment NSR element via a SIP-approved program. With respect to PM2.5, 

the district implements the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S and has 

sent a letter to EPA affirming as much.63 We therefore propose to approve California’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for South Coast AQMD based on a combination of its 

SIP-approved program for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS and its implementation of 

Appendix S for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

 

iii. 2 Districts will be relieved of nonattainment NSR requirements upon revocation of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS 

EPA has proposed to revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS as part of the proposed implementation rule for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS.64 For areas that are designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, but remain designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

of 0.080 ppm, the finalization of this proposed rule would have the effect of revoking the requirement 

for such an area to submit a nonattainment NSR SIP revision. In California, this scenario applies to both 

Amador County and Tuolumne County air districts.65 We anticipate that EPA will finalize that proposed 

rule prior to finalization of this proposed rule on California’s Infrastructure SIPs. As such, we propose to 

find that Amador County and Tuolumne County air districts will not be required to submit 

nonattainment NSR SIP revisions to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Instead, the PSD program 

requirements will apply and both areas are subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. Therefore, we 

propose to partially disapprove these two districts with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) on the basis 

that they will not meet the relevant “structural” PSD elements. However, EPA has already applied the 

PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21 to each of these districts; thus, finalization of this proposed, partial 

disapproval will not trigger any new obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP. 

iv. 2 Districts have until summer 2015 to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions 

Eastern San Luis Obispo County in San Luis Obispo County APCD and Tuscan Buttes in Tehama 

County APCD are designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Stemming from EPA’s proposed implementation 

rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,66 required nonattainment NSR SIP revisions would not be due until 

July 20, 2015 and, thus, this requirement is not yet due for these two districts. Until such SIP revisions 

are submitted by these two districts and approved by EPA, the districts are required to implement 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix S for any major source emitting an applicable nonattainment pollutant (i.e., NOx

or VOCs) that may propose to locate in the respective nonattainment areas. Since these requirements are 

not yet due, and based on the districts’ interim implementation of Appendix S, we propose to approve 

these two districts with respect to the nonattainment NSR element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

 

63 See South Coast AQMD’s letter affirming implementation of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, sent to EPA on July 10, 2014. 

64 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013. 

65 This scenario also applies to the Sutter Buttes nonattainment area within Feather River AQMD. However, the southern 

portion of Feather River AQMD has been designated nonattainment for both the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, 

the requirement for this air district to submit a nonattainment NSR SIP revision remains, though it will no longer apply to 

Sutter Buttes area, which was designated nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS only. 

66 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013. 
17 

Conclusion 

Because preconstruction permitting of new and modified major stationary sources involves a 

combination of PSD and nonattainment NSR programs, our conclusions as to whether California meets 

the requirement of interstate transport prong 3 relies on a combination of our evaluation of the state’s 

PSD and nonattainment NSR programs. EPA is proposing to partially approve California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the permitting requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the NAAQS evaluated by this TSD for the following seven districts: 

· Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Monterey Bay Unified,67 Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San 

Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano air districts. 

EPA is proposing to partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the 

permitting requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the NAAQS treated by this TSD for the 

following districts on the basis of the described PSD program deficiencies: 

· Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area, Butte County, Calaveras County, Colusa County, 

El Dorado County, Feather River, Glenn County, Great Basin Unified, Lake County, Lassen 

County, Mariposa County, Mendocino County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, North Coast 

Unified, Northern Sierra, Northern Sonoma County, San Luis Obispo County, San Diego 

County, Santa Barbara County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, South Coast, Tehama County, 

Tuolumne County, and Ventura County air districts. 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) – PSD (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).” 

Herein we are only evaluating California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) that pertain to the PSD requirements of CAA Title I, part C. For a 

discussion of these requirements, see our evaluation for section 110(a)(2)(C) above. For discussion of 

the other requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), i.e., consultation, public notification, and visibility 

protection, please refer to our Overarching TSD, which accompanies this TSD. 

California’s response to this requirement 

The statements of California Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the PSD requirement of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) largely reprise, in abbreviated form, the PSD discussion presented for section 

110(a)(2)(C) in each submittal. As they do not provide any further detail on such programs, we rely 

instead on our summary of California’s response to the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C). 

EPA’s evaluation 

For California’s PSD programs, we draw the same conclusions as described in our evaluation of section 

110(a)(2)(C) above. In other words, seven districts meet the “structural” PSD requirements for purposes 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J), four districts partially meet such “structural” PSD requirements for section 

110(a)(2)(J), and 24 districts are subject to a PSD FIP (including eight that have made PSD SIP 

submittals) and therefore do not meet such “structural” PSD requirements for section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Similarly, our description of the consequences of finalizing any proposed disapproval relating to PSD 

 

67 As noted, in the alternative that we do not finalize approval of Monterey Bay Unified APCD’s PSD SIP revision prior to 

finalization of this i-SIP proposal, we herein propose to partially disapprove this district with respect to the PSD-related 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 
18 

for section 110(a)(2)(C), i.e., the existence of an applicable FIP, the prior establishment of a FIP 

deadline, or the establishment of a new FIP deadline, carry over to section 110(a)(2)(J). Please see our 

evaluation of PSD for section 110(a)(2)(C) above for a district-specific accounting. 

Therefore, we propose to partially approve and partially disapprove California’s infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for the PSD requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L) – Permit Fees 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires that each SIP: 

require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, 

as a condition of any permit required under the Act, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or 

operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing 

the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to 

such sources by the Administrator’s approval of a fee program under title V of the Act. 

California’s response to this requirement 

California’s 2007, 2011, and 2012 Submittals state that California’s 35 air districts bear responsibility 

for stationary source permitting and have regulations requiring the payment of fees from facilities 

subject to CAA Title V requirements.68 California’s 2014 Submittal reiterates this statement, notes that 

EPA has approved the Title V programs of all 35 air districts, as reflected in 40 CFR part 70, Appendix 

A (“Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs”), and provides a table that 

identifies the Title V rule for each air district.69 This submittal cites HSC section 42311 as authorizing 

local air districts “to adopt a schedule of fees for the evaluation, issuance, and renewal of permits to 

cover the cost of air district programs related to permitting stationary sources.”70 It asserts that major 

source permit applicants are assessed a fee for processing their application for an Authority to Construct 

or a Permit to Operate. The amount of such fees may be based on allowable emissions or on the type and 

quantity of facility equipment and districts collect fees at the time of annual permit renewals and, in 

some cases, for observation during source tests. The submittal provides a link to ARB’s website that 

provides a general overview of Title V permitting in California: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/tv/tvinfo/overview.htm.

EPA’s evaluation 

We have reviewed California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals’ responses to this requirement and have 

also considered air district provisions approved into the California SIP. We agree with California’s 

assertions that HSC Section 42311 provides authority to require fees for the evaluation, issuance, and 

renewal of stationary sources, including new and existing major sources, except for South Coast 

AQMD, whose similar permit fee authority is instead found in HSC Section 40510(b). We also agree 

that all 35 air districts have fully approved Title V operating permit programs.71 Such program approvals 

supersede the operating fee requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L). 

 

68 California’s 2007 Submittal, Appendix B, pp. 7-8; California’s 2011 Submittal, Appendix A, p. A-13; and California’s 

2012 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. A-13 to A-14. 

69 California’s 2014 Submittal, Enclosure 1, pp. 43-44. See Table 17 on p. 44 for the identification of district Title V rules, 

which notes that Title V rules are not required to be approved into the California SIP. 

70 Id. at 43. 

71 68 FR 65637, November 21, 2003 (approving 34 air districts’ Title V programs), and 69 FR 2511, January 16, 2004 

(approving Antelope Valley APCD’s Title V program). 
19 

In addition, several air districts have SIP-approved rules that require the payment of a fee for the 

evaluation and issuance of an Authority to Construct. For example: 

· Bay Area AQMD Regulations 3-302 requires applicants for an Authority to Construct or permits 

to operate new or modified sources to pay a filing fee and an initial fee based on fee schedules 

that are external to the regulation,72

· Sacramento Metro AQMD Rule 214, Section 402.2 requires a fee to be paid according to a 

separate fee schedule rule in order for a permit application required for federal new source 

review (i.e., PSD and nonattainment NSR) to be found complete, which is a necessary step in the 

evaluation and issuance of such a permit,73 and 

· Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 3.01, section 401 requires permit applicants to include a filing fee 

with their Authority to Construct application.74

Numerous other air districts had SIP-approved rules that required the payment of fees for Authority to 

Construct permits, which EPA subsequently removed from the California SIP because they also 

included the actual fee schedule (i.e., fee rates based on allowable emissions or on the type and quantity 

of facility equipment).75 We removed such provisions from the California SIP on the basis that it’s not 

generally appropriate to make local fee collection federally enforceable. There could be exceptions to 

this general rule where such fee provisions are used as SIP-related economic incentives or designed to 

replace or relax an emission limit in the SIP. Thus, while such districts retained their rule requirements 

for major sources to pay a fee as a condition of evaluation and issuance of a preconstruction permit, they 

are no longer contained in the California SIP. 

In addition, California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals note for purposes of the resources requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that the annual budgets of the air districts are funded by “fees paid by 

regulated businesses, motor vehicle registration fees, state and federal grants, and other local sources.”76

Fees paid by regulated businesses includes fees paid by stationary sources for preconstruction and 

operating permits. We propose to conclude that California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals provide 

necessary assurance of adequate funding and personnel pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). While this 

does not substitute for a permit program-specific analysis of whether the air districts fee programs are 

sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting on a permit application, they do provide 

further evidence of the overall sustainability of funding mechanisms for such CAA purposes. For further 

discussion of California’s resources, please refer to our Overarching TSD, which accompanies this TSD. 

Therefore, on the basis of California’s federally-approved Title V programs, the air districts 

requirements to pay a fee for reviewing and acting on preconstruction and operating permit applications 

for major sources, and our related evaluation of the air districts’ funding resources, we propose to find 

that California meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L). 

 

72 49 FR 18824, May 3, 1984. 

73 78 FR 53271, August 29, 2013. 

74 62 FR 36214, July 7, 1997. 

75 67 FR 2573, January 18, 2002, p. 2574. See The proposed rule to remove such fee rules from the California SIP contains a 

table that identifies such rules by air district. 66 FR 47603, September 13, 2001. 

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