Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80749 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 6. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

‘‘Maintenance plan for the Virginia 

portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 

Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

Additional 

explanation 

*******

Maintenance plan for the Virginia portion 

of the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard.

Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince 

William Counties and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park.

10/11/23 10/4/2024, [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].Added § 52.2428(n). 

*******

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 52.2428: 

■ a. Remove the heading from paragraph 

(h); and 

■ b. Add paragraph (n). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon 

monoxide and ozone. 

* * * * * 

(n) EPA approves updates to the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) maintenance 

plan for the Virginia portion of the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS Maintenance Area. The 

updates include revised motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) and updates 

to the applicable onroad and nonroad 

mobile emissions for VOC and NOX for 

the years 2025 and 2030. EPA also 

approves the allocation of a portion of 

the safety margins for VOC and NOX in 

the ozone maintenance plan to the 2025 

and 2030 MVEBs. The revised MVEBs 

for VOC and NOX applies to all future 

transportation conformity 

determinations and analyses for the 

entire Washington, DC-MD-VA 

Maintenance Area for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (n)—REVISED ONROAD MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS USING MOVES 3.0.4 

Year 

VOC onroad 

emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX onroad 

emissions 

(tpd) 

2014 Attainment Year .............................................................................................................................................. 61.25 136.84 

2025 Predicted Emissions without Safety Margin ................................................................................................... 27.92 46.52 

2025 Safety Margin ................................................................................................................................................. 5.58 9.30 

2025 Interim Budget with Safety Margin ................................................................................................................. 33.50 55.82 

2030 Predicted Emissions without Safety Margin ................................................................................................... 21.75 34.26 

2030 Safety Margin ................................................................................................................................................. 4.35 6.85 

2030 Final Budget with Safety Margin .................................................................................................................... 26.10 41.11 

[FR Doc. 2024–22535 Filed 10–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0477; FRL–11532– 

03–R9] 

Clean Air Plans; Contingency 

Measures for the Fine Particulate 

Matter Standards; San Joaquin Valley, 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve two state implementation plan 

(SIP) submissions under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) that address the contingency 

measure requirements for the 1997 

annual, 2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 

or ‘‘standards’’) for the San Joaquin 

Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area in 

California. The two SIP submissions 

include the area’s contingency measure 

plan element and two specific 

contingency measures that would apply 

to residential wood burning heaters and 

fireplaces and to non-agricultural, rural 

open areas. A third contingency 

measure, applicable to light-duty onroad motor vehicles, has been approved 

into the California SIP in a separate 

action by the EPA, and the related 

emission reductions from the third 

measure are accounted for in this final 

rule. The EPA is finalizing approval of 

the SIP submissions because the Agency 

has determined that they are in 

accordance with the applicable 

requirements for such SIP submissions 

under the CAA and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations for the PM2.5

NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0477. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80750 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 is titled ‘‘Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters.’’ 

2SJVUAPCD Rule 8051 is titled ‘‘Open Areas.’’ 

3CARB adopted the SJV PM2.5 Contingency 

Measure SIP and Residential Wood Burning 

Contingency Measure as SIP revisions on June 7, 

2023, through Executive Order S–23–010 and 

submitted the SIP revisions to the EPA 

electronically on June 8, 2023, as attachments to a 

letter dated June 7, 2023, from Steven S. Cliff, 

Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB to Martha Guzman, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

4CARB adopted the Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measure as a SIP revision on October 

13, 2023, through Executive Order S–23–014 and 

submitted the SIP revision to the EPA electronically 

on October 16, 2023, as an attachment to a letter 

dated October 13, 2023, from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., 

Executive Officer, CARB to Martha Guzman, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

5 88 FR 87981 (December 20, 2023). We note that 

the EPA finalized approval of the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure. 89 FR 56222 (July 9, 2024). 

6 83 FR 62720 (December 6, 2018). In response to 

our finding of failure to submit, the EPA proposed 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the 

contingency measure requirements for the 1997 

annual, 2006 24-hour and 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS at 88 FR 53431 (August 8, 2023). 

7 86 FR 67343 (November 26, 2021) and 86 FR 

67329 (November 26, 2021). 

8 88 FR 87988, 87989–87993 (December 20, 2023). 

9Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235–1237 (9th Cir. 

2016) and Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 

F.4th 937, 946–47 (9th Cir. 2021) (‘‘AIR v. EPA’’ or 

‘‘AIR’’). 

10Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827–828 (D.C. 

Cir. 2021). 

11 88 FR 87988, 87993–87994. 

12 88 FR 87988, 87994. See also, 88 FR 17571 

(March 23, 2023) (notice of availability of the EPA’s 

Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance). 

13The EPA’s long-standing recommendation was 

that states should adopt contingency measures 

sufficient to provide emission reductions equivalent 

to one year’s worth (OYW) of reasonable further 

progress (RFP). In the Draft Revised Contingency 

Measure Guidance, the EPA recommends a different 

amount that contingency measures should 

achieve—one that is defined in terms of OYW of 

‘‘progress’’ rather than OYW of RFP. 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

a disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Planning and Analysis Branch 

(AIR–2), Air and Radiation Division, 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San 

Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972– 

3227; email: mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Proposed Action 

B. Changes to Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Environmental Justice Considerations 

IV. EPA Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Proposed Action 

On December 20, 2023 (88 Federal 

Register (FR) 87988), the EPA proposed 

to approve California’s contingency 

measure SIP submissions for the 1997 

annual, 2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

for the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area in California. 

Specifically, the SIP submissions 

include the ‘‘PM2.5 Contingency 

Measure State Implementation Plan 

Revision (May 18, 2023)’’ (herein 

referred to as the ‘‘SJV PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP’’), revisions to 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 

or ‘‘District’’) Rule 4901 (amended May 

18, 2023) 1 that add PM2.5 NAAQS 

contingency provisions that we refer to 

herein as the ‘‘Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure,’’ and 

revisions to Rule 8051 (amended 

September 21, 2023) 2 that add PM2.5

NAAQS contingency provisions that we 

refer to herein as the ‘‘Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measure.’’ CARB 

submitted the SJV PM2.5 Contingency 

Measure SIP and the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure on June 

8, 2023,3 and the Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measure on October 16, 

2023,4 as revisions to the California SIP. 

In addition, in a separate proposed 

rule also published on December 20, 

2023, the EPA proposed approval of a 

third contingency measure, applicable 

to light-duty on-road motor vehicles, 

and the related emission reductions 

from the third measure are accounted 

for in this final rule.5 We refer to the 

third contingency measure as the ‘‘Smog 

Check Contingency Measure.’’ 

We proposed to approve the SJV PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP, the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure, and the Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measure because we 

determined that they, along with 

emission reductions from the Smog 

Check Contingency Measure, comply 

with the contingency measure SIP 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

and EPA’s implementing regulations at 

40 CFR 51.1014. We collectively refer 

herein to CARB’s contingency measure 

SIP submissions for the 1997 annual, 

2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley as 

the State’s ‘‘2023 SIP Submissions.’’ 

In sections I and II of the proposed 

rule, we presented background 

information on the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour, the 2006 24-hour and 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the nonattainment 

designations and classifications of the 

San Joaquin Valley for these PM2.5

NAAQS, and the resultant contingency 

measure SIP obligations; summarized 

our prior PM2.5 contingency measure 

findings of failure to submit 6 and 

disapprovals for the San Joaquin 

Valley; 7 described the SIP submissions 

at issue in this action; and provided the 

basis for our preliminary conclusion 

that the SIP submissions met applicable 

procedural requirements.8 In section III 

of the proposed rule, we summarized 

the contingency measure SIP 

requirements under the CAA and the 

EPA’s implementing regulations, 

relevant EPA guidance, and legal 

precedent, including a brief discussion 

of relevant decisions by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals 9 and the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals.10 11

In addition, we described the EPA’s 

long-standing approach to contingency 

measures and the EPA’s revised 

approach for addressing the contingency 

measure SIP requirements, as presented 

in the EPA’s draft guidance, entitled 

‘‘Draft: Guidance on the Preparation of 

State Implementation Plan Provisions 

that Address the Nonattainment Area 

Contingency Measure Requirements for 

Ozone and Particulate Matter (DRAFT— 

3/17/23—Public Review Version),’’ 

herein referred to as the ‘‘Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance.’’ 12

Two principal differences between the 

draft revised guidance and existing 

guidance on contingency measures 

relate to the EPA’s recommendations 

concerning the specific amount of 

emission reductions that 

implementation of contingency 

measures should achieve 13 and the 

timing for when the emission reductions 

from the contingency measures should 

occur. The Draft Revised Contingency 

Measure Guidance also provides 

recommended procedures for 

developing a demonstration, if 

applicable, that the area lacks sufficient 

feasible measures to achieve one year’s 

worth (OYW) of reductions, building on 

existing guidance that the state should 

provide a reasoned justification for why 

the smaller amount of emission 

reductions is appropriate. 

In section IV of the proposed rule, we 

described the two specific District PM2.5

contingency measures proposed for 

approval in this action (i.e., the 

District’s Residential Wood Burning 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80751 

14 88 FR 87988, 87995–87998. 

15 Id. 

16 88 FR 87988, 87999–88009. 

17SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, pp. 9–11. 

18SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, section 

5.3 (‘‘Measure Analysis’’); and Smog Check 

Contingency Measure, Appendix A (‘‘Infeasibility 

Analysis’’). 

19 Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, 

pp. 40–42. 

20 88 FR 87988, 87996. 

21 88 FR 87988, 88004–88005, Table 2 and Table 

3. Note that CARB did not estimate any direct PM2.5

emission reductions from implementation of the 

Smog Check Contingency Measure. 

22 88 FR 87988, 88005. 

Contingency Measure and Rural Open 

Areas Contingency Measure) and 

provided our evaluation of the measures 

relative to the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. In 

short, we preliminarily concluded that 

the contingency measures met the 

requirements for such measures because 

both measures are designed to be both 

prospective and conditional, include 

appropriate triggering mechanisms for 

requirements, and are structured to be 

implemented in a timely manner 

without significant further action by the 

District, CARB, or the EPA and to 

achieve the estimated emission 

reductions within roughly a year or two 

of the triggering event.14 Furthermore, 

both requirements that would be 

triggered are not required for any other 

CAA purpose, and the emission 

reductions from the measures are not 

included in any reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or attainment 

demonstration for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the San Joaquin Valley. For these 

reasons, we proposed to approve 

District’s Residential Wood Burning 

Contingency Measure and Rural Open 

Areas Contingency Measure.15

In section V of the proposed rule, we 

summarized how the District and CARB 

had applied the revised approach to 

fulfilling the contingency measure SIP 

requirement in the context of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, and 

we presented our evaluation thereof.16

Specifically, we discussed our 

evaluation of the District’s and CARB’s 

identification and evaluation of 

potential control measures, adoption of 

certain contingency measures, 

comparison of those contingency 

measures against OYW of emission 

reductions, and reasoned justification 

for not adopting further contingency 

measures, which we recap in the 

following paragraphs. 

In the SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure 

SIP, the District described its ongoing 

stationary source regulatory efforts, 

identified potential control measures as 

candidate contingency measures, and 

analyzed the technological and/or 

economic feasibility of each candidate 

measure, including the feasibility of 

implementing such measures within 60 

days and achieving the resulting 

emission reductions within one to two 

years of the triggering event.17 The 

District also provided more in-depth 

analysis of potential control measures 

for five source categories, ultimately 

adopting measures for two source 

categories (wood burning fireplaces/ 

heaters and rural open areas) and 

providing a justification in the form of 

an infeasibility demonstration for not 

adopting contingency measures for the 

other three source categories 

(commercial charbroiling, almond 

harvesting, and oil and gas production 

combustion equipment). 

Similarly, CARB identified potential 

mobile source control measures, 

assessed whether each candidate 

measure could be implemented within 

60 days of a triggering event and achieve 

emission reductions within one to two 

years, and then analyzed their 

technological and/or economic 

feasibility.18 Regarding timing of 

emission reductions from mobile 

sources, CARB concluded that new 

engine standards and fleet regulations 

are not appropriate for contingency 

measures given the time needed for 

manufacturers to design, develop, and 

deploy cleaner engines or equipment at 

scale, especially for zero-emission 

equipment. 

The District and CARB ultimately 

adopted three contingency measures 

identified through their respective 

evaluation processes: the Residential 

Wood Burning Contingency Measure, 

the Rural Open Areas Contingency 

Measure, and the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure. Each of these 

measures can be implemented without 

further action by the District, CARB, or 

the EPA and achieve emission 

reductions within one to two years of 

the triggering event, consistent with the 

contingency measure requirements 

under CAA section 172(c)(9) and the 

EPA’s recommendations regarding 

timing in the Draft Revised Contingency 

Measures Guidance.19 In addition, the 

revisions to SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 

establishing the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure resolved 

deficiencies identified in the EPA’s 

disapproval of prior contingency 

provisions in Rule 4901, thereby 

ensuring that the direct PM2.5 and NOX

emission reductions will be achieved, 

irrespective of which county may 

exceed the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS at 

the time of any finding of failure to 

attain or other applicable 

determination.20

The District then assessed how the 

emission reductions from the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure would compare against OYW 

of progress as defined in the Draft 

Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance. As part of our evaluation and 

for the proposed rule, we prepared an 

independent assessment of the emission 

reductions to include the two additional 

contingency measures that were 

adopted and submitted after the 

submission of the SJV PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP and to 

provide a comparison of the emission 

reductions relative to OYW of progress 

to the long-standing recommendation of 

OYW of RFP. In our proposed rule, we 

found that the combined 0.5873 tons per 

day (tpd) of direct PM2.5 emission 

reductions from the District contingency 

measures (for residential wood burning 

and for rural open areas) would exceed 

both OYW of RFP (0.44–0.58 tpd, 

depending on the applicable PM2.5

NAAQS) and OYW of progress (0.41– 

0.52 tpd, depending on the applicable 

PM2.5 NAAQS).21

With respect to NOX emissions, the 

combined 0.1647–0.1977 tpd emission 

reductions from all three contingency 

measures would provide a portion of the 

reductions toward OYW of emission 

reductions and, after consideration of 

interpollutant trading of excess direct 

PM2.5 emission reductions from the two 

District contingency measures for 

equivalent NOX emission reductions, 

would amount to 1.3 percent (%) to 

6.3% of OYW of RFP or 8.8% to 15.7% 

of OYW of progress for NOX.22


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80752 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

23We proposed to approve the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure SIP at 88 FR 87981. 

24The Carl Moyer Program distributes incentive 

grants to fund the incremental cost of cleaner-thanrequired engines, equipment, and other technology 

and is funded, in part, by abatement fees that are 

assessed on vehicles exempted from Smog Check 

testing. 

25 89 FR 56222, 56225. 

As the NOX emission reductions fall 

short of OYW of progress, CARB and the 

District documented their control 

measure analyses across the wide range 

of source categories under each agency’s 

respective jurisdiction (e.g., on-road 

sources, off-road sources, stationary 

point sources, and area sources) for NOX

emissions. We described the District’s 

and CARB’s infeasibility 

demonstrations, and our evaluation 

thereof, in detail and proposed that they 

adequately justify the contingency 

measures selected by CARB and the 

District for the 1997 annual, 2006 24- 

hour, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 

the San Joaquin Valley. In light of the 

three adopted contingency measures 

and reasoned justifications for not 

adopting additional contingency 

measures, we proposed to approve the 

SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure, and the Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measure, taking into 

account the emission reductions from 

the Smog Check Contingency Measure 

(as applied to the San Joaquin Valley), 

as meeting the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

and 40 CFR 51.1014 for these PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. 

See our December 20, 2023 proposed 

rule (88 FR 87988) for more information 

on the SIP submissions and our 

evaluation thereof. 

B. Changes to Proposed Action 

In our proposed rule, we evaluated 

the SIP submissions for compliance 

with contingency measure SIP 

requirements, in part, by comparing the 

emission reductions from the 

contingency measures with OYW of 

progress and OYW of RFP. In so doing, 

we relied on emissions estimates for the 

three individual contingency 

measures—two (the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure and the 

Rural Open Areas Contingency 

Measure) that we proposed to approve 

in the proposed rule (and that we are 

finalizing in this action) and one (the 

Smog Check Contingency Measure) that 

we proposed to approve in a separate 

action.23 In Table 2 of the proposed rule, 

we summarized the estimated emission 

reductions from the contingency 

measures, and in Table 3 of the 

proposed rule, we presented the 

estimated emission reductions as 

percentages of OYW of RFP and OYW 

of progress both with and without 

trading emission reductions between 

direct PM2.5 and NOX. 

In both of these tables in the proposed 

rule, we discounted the emission 

reductions from implementation of the 

Smog Check Contingency Measure by an 

amount calculated by CARB to reflect 

the effect of a decrease in Moyer 

Program funding in the San Joaquin 

Valley if the Smog Check Contingency 

Measure were triggered.24 However, in 

our final rule approving the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure SIP, we indicated 

that we agreed with comments 

challenging the discount that we had 

applied and concluded that the discount 

was inappropriate due to timing 

considerations.25 By no longer 

discounting the emission reductions 

attributed to the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure, the estimates for 

total emission reductions for 

implementation of all three contingency 

measures are slightly greater than had 

been presented in the proposed rule. 

The change in emissions estimates and 

percentages is minor and does not 

change any of the preliminary 

conclusions that we made in connection 

with our proposed action on the SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP. 

Nonetheless, in the interest of 

presenting the most accurate 

information available, we are 

republishing Tables 2 and 3 to reflect 

the updated estimates of emission 

reductions from the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure. 

TABLE 2—REVISED ANNUAL AVERAGE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM DISTRICT AND CARB CONTINGENCY MEASURES

[tpd] 

Contingency measure 

1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS 

2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS 

2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS 

Direct 

PM2.5 NOX Direct PM2.5 NOX Direct PM2.5 NOX

District: Residential Wood Burning (first triggering event) 0.5793 0.0817 0.5793 0.0817 0.5793 0.0817 

District: Non-agricultural Rural Open Areas .................... 0.008 .................... 0.008 .................... 0.008 ....................

CARB: Smog Check (first triggering event) ..................... .................... 0.117 .................... 0.120 .................... 0.086 

Total .......................................................................... 0.5873 0.1987 0.5873 0.2017 0.5873 0.1677 

TABLE 3—REVISED EPA EVALUATION OF DISTRICT AND CARB CONTINGENCY MEASURES AS PERCENTAGE OF ONE

YEAR’S WORTH OF RFP AND ONE YEAR’S WORTH OF PROGRESS

PM2.5 NAAQS Pollutant 

One year’s worth of RFP One year’s worth of progress 

Reductions 

target 

% OYW 

(no trading) 

% OYW 

(with trading) a

Reductions 

target 

% OYW 

(no trading) 

% OYW 

(with trading) a

1997 Annual .............. Direct PM2.5 .............

NOX ..........................

0.44 

16.7 

132 

1.2 

100 

6.3 

0.41 

7.9 

142 

2.5 

100 b 15.8 

2006 24-hour ............. Direct PM2.5 .............

NOX ..........................

0.58 

18.4 

101 

1.1 

100 

1.3 

0.52 

6.7 

112 

3.0 

100 

b 8.9 

2012 Annual .............. Direct PM2.5 .............

NOX ..........................

0.46 

15.3 

129 

1.1 

100 

6.3 

0.43 

8.7 

138 

1.9 

100 

13.1 

aThe EPA has calculated % OYW (With Trading) for NOX based on the 6:1 ratio presented in the SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80753 

26Letter dated January 17, 2024, from Steven S. 

Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

27Letter dated January 19, 2024, from Brent 

Newell, Attorney for Central California 

Environmental Justice Network, Committee for a 

Better Arvin, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, 

and Healthy Environment for All Lives, to Jeffrey 

Buss and Rory Mays, Air and Radiation Division, 

EPA Region IX, including 16 exhibits (‘‘Valley EJ 

Organizations Comment Letter’’). 

28Letter dated January 19, 2024, from Central 

Valley Air Quality Coalition, National Parks 

Conservation Association, Little Manila Rising, 

Valley Improvement Projects, and Leadership 

Counsel for Justice and Accountability, to Rory 

Mays, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX 

(‘‘CVAQ Comment Letter’’). 

29 89 FR 56222, 56224–56229. 30CVAQ Comment Letter, p. 2. 

31OYW of RFP is calculated differently for ozone 

and particular matter (PM). For ozone, annual RFP 

is essentially defined as three percent of the base 

year emissions inventory (EI). For PM, annual RFP 

is the average annual reductions between the base 

year EI and the projected attainment year EI (i.e., 

the projected attainment inventory for the 

nonattainment area). In contrast, OYW of progress 

is calculated the same way for ozone and PM: by 

determining the average annual reductions between 

the base year EI and the projected attainment year 

EI, determining what percentage of the base year EI 

this amount represents, then applying that 

percentage to the projected attainment year EI to 

determine the amount of reductions needed to 

ensure ongoing progress if contingency measures 

are triggered. See also 88 FR 87988, 87994 and the 

EPA’s Draft Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance, pp. 21–23. 

32See CAA sections 182(g)(3) and 189(c)(3). 

33See CAA section 179(d). 

bThe percentage of OYW of Progress (With Trading) is 0.1% higher in this table for NOX for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

relative to Table 3 of our proposed rule. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received comment 

letters from three organizations or 

groups. CARB submitted a letter 

supporting the EPA’s proposed 

approval.26 A group of four 

environmental, public health, and 

community organizations (collectively 

referred to herein as ‘‘Valley EJ 

Organizations’’) submitted adverse 

comments,27 and a separate group of 

five environmental, public health, and 

community organizations (collectively 

referred to herein as ‘‘CVAQ’’) 

submitted adverse comments.28 To the 

extent that certain comments by the 

Valley EJ Organizations solely pertain to 

the Smog Check Contingency Measure 

and the State’s commitments to submit 

attainment contingency measures for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, we have addressed 

those comments in a separate final rule 

on the Smog Check Contingency 

Measure.29

Comment 1: The Valley EJ 

Organizations assert that the EPA’s 

proposed approval of the PM2.5

contingency measures departs from the 

EPA’s long-standing interpretation 

requiring OYW of RFP. They further 

state that the proposed approvals based 

on the Draft Revised Contingency 

Measure Guidance violate CAA section 

172(c)(9) by severing the amount of 

required emission reductions from the 

parallel and related RFP requirement 

when the EPA shifts from its OYW of 

RFP to its new OYW of progress 

interpretation. The Valley EJ 

Organizations further assert that the 

plain meaning does not allow, and the 

EPA cannot provide a reasoned 

justification for, an interpretation that 

requires less than that which the Act 

requires for RFP and that, here, the 

PM2.5 contingency measures plainly 

provide reductions far less than OYW of 

RFP. The CVAQ Comment Letter echoes 

these points, stating that the emission 

reductions from the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure and the 

Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure 

would ‘‘fall well short of the emission 

reductions needed to comply with the 

weakened average annual reduction 

requirement in EPA’s draft guidance 

even when allowing for the 

interpollutant substitution of excess 

direct PM2.5 emissions for NOX

emissions.’’ 30

Response to Comment 1: Regarding 

emission reduction metrics (i.e., the 

recommended amount of emission 

reductions that contingency measures 

should achieve), we disagree with 

commenters as to what is required 

under the CAA and with the 

commenters’ broader framing of 

contingency measures within the overall 

planning requirements for 

nonattainment areas. While there is a 

statutory link between RFP and the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9), it does not 

function as the commenter suggests (i.e., 

to establish an amount of emission 

reductions that contingency measures 

should achieve). The statutory text of 

this provision is as follows: 

CAA section 172(c)(9) (‘‘Contingency 

measures’’)—‘‘Such plan shall provide for the 

implementation of specific measures to be 

undertaken if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress, or to attain the 

national primary ambient air quality standard 

by the attainment date applicable under this 

part. Such measures shall be included in the 

plan revision as contingency measures to 

take effect in any such case without further 

action by the State or the Administrator.’’ 

Thus, while section 172(c)(9) requires 

contingency measures where an area 

fails to make RFP, the language does not 

specify what amount of emission 

reductions such measures should 

achieve (i.e., does not explicitly tie the 

amount of reductions to RFP). 

Moreover, the statutory text also has a 

link to attainment, but it too does not 

specify what amount of emission 

reductions contingency measures 

should achieve. 

While Congress did not specify an 

amount that contingency measures must 

achieve to comply with CAA section 

172(c)(9), Congress must have intended 

the amount to be material because, 

without a specified amount, a state 

would not know how to comply with 

the requirement. Thus Congress must 

have at least implicitly delegated to the 

EPA the authority to determine an 

amount of emissions reductions that 

contingency measures should achieve 

and thereby give meaning to the 

requirement and provide states with a 

basis to comply with CAA section 

172(c)(9) for a given nonattainment area. 

The EPA has taken a policy approach to 

this question, and in the past, the EPA 

has indicated that the recommended 

amount is OYW of RFP but allowed 

states to provide a reasoned justification 

for adopting contingency measures that 

would provide less than the 

recommended amount. Under the Draft 

Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance, the EPA is continuing to take 

a policy approach but is recommending 

OYW of progress and describing a 

specific analytical framework that states 

may use to develop a reasoned 

justification if the state is unable to 

identify and adopt contingency 

measures that can achieve the 

recommended amount of emissions 

reductions.31

In support of our revised approach, 

we first note that, for both RFP and 

attainment purposes, contingency 

measures are intended to provide for 

continued progress in the event that an 

area fails to meet an RFP milestone or 

fails to attain the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. They are not 

themselves expected to provide for 

either RFP or attainment. With respect 

to RFP, the CAA provides certain 

remedies if the contingency measures 

do not make up the shortfall for a given 

RFP milestone.32 With respect to a 

failure to attain by the applicable 

attainment date, the CAA too provides 

a remedy by requiring a new attainment 

plan.33


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80754 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

34EPA’s Draft Revised Contingency Measures 

Guidance, pp. 21–23. 

35See Table 3 of this final rule. 36See Table 3 of this final rule. 37The commenter cites Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 

1218 (9th Cir. 2016) (‘‘Bahr’’); Sierra Club v. EPA, 

21 F.4th 815 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (‘‘Sierra Club’’); AIR 

v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937 (9th Cir. 2021) (‘‘AIR’’). 

38AIR v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, 946 (9th Cir. 2021). 

39 Id. 

In reviewing our long-standing 

approach to contingency measures, the 

EPA observed that basing the amount of 

emission reductions on the annual 

amount of reductions needed to meet 

the separate RFP requirement—OYW of 

RFP—may in some cases lead to an 

amount that is greater than what 

typically would be needed to make up 

for a shortfall in RFP or for attainment 

purposes.34 The OYW of RFP approach 

was unnecessarily conservative for 

estimating the amount of emission 

reductions needed for contingency 

measure purposes because a given 

percentage of the base year inventory 

tends to represent a much more 

significant portion of the attainment 

projected inventory. 

In shifting to the OYW of progress 

approach, the EPA recognizes 

attainment of the NAAQS as the 

primary objective of the nonattainment 

plan requirements, and thus the 

appropriate metric should be 

attainment-focused. In the absence of a 

CAA-specified amount of emission 

reductions required for contingency 

measures, the EPA’s new approach is a 

better reading of the contingency 

measure SIP requirement given our 

understanding of the statutory purpose 

of contingency measures following a 

failure to attain or to meet an RFP 

milestone, which is to ensure 

uninterrupted progress toward 

attainment while the next steps unfold 

in response to the failure. In addition, 

unlike the previous approach, the EPA’s 

new approach takes into account the 

declining emissions inventories 

between the base year and attainment 

year for a given nonattainment area and 

aligns the metric for determining the 

amount of emission reductions that 

contingency measures should achieve 

for ozone and particulate matter (PM). 

The alignment between ozone and PM 

is a better reading of the statute 

considering that the relevant statutory 

provision, CAA section 172(c)(9), 

applies to all the NAAQS. 

As to the specific SIP submission 

addressed in this document, we 

acknowledge that CARB and the District 

used the newly-recommended metric in 

preparing the SJV PM2.5 Contingency 

Measure SIP for which the EPA is now 

finalizing approval but, in this instance, 

the SIP submission and the EPA’s 

evaluation thereof would have been the 

same in substance if the previous metric 

(i.e., OYW of RFP) had been used 

instead. This is because, using either 

metric, the SIP submissions include 

contingency measures that collectively 

provide for OYW of progress or RFP for 

direct PM2.5 and a portion of OYW of 

progress or RFP for NOX.35 The only 

difference is the extent to which the 

emission reductions from the 

contingency measures fall short of each 

metric for NOX reductions. Using the 

OYW of progress metric (with trading), 

the contingency measures are estimated 

to achieve between 8.9% and 15.8% of 

OYW of progress for NOX as compared 

to between 1.3% and 6.3% of OYW of 

RFP for NOX using the previouslyrecommended metric (with trading).36

Using either metric, the EPA would 

have expected the State to provide a 

reasoned justification for not adopting 

contingency measures sufficient to 

achieve greater NOX emission 

reductions; consistent with the EPA’s 

recommendations in the Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance, CARB 

and the District provided such reasoned 

justification in their infeasibility 

demonstrations. 

Comment 2: The Valley EJ 

Organizations assert that the EPA’s 

proposed approval of the State’s 2023 

SIP Submissions circumvents three 

recent court decisions 37 and unlawfully 

and arbitrarily (a) lowers the amount of 

emission reductions required for 

contingency measures (‘‘by severing the 

statutory link to [RFP],’’ i.e., by shifting 

from OYW of RFP under the EPA’s prior 

interpretation to OYW of progress under 

the EPA’s revised interpretation), (b) 

extends implementation of contingency 

measures from one year to two years, 

and (c) invents a new feasibility 

exemption that does not appear in CAA 

section 172(c)(9). The commenters state 

that the EPA’s proposed approval relies 

on the Draft Revised Contingency 

Measures Guidance ‘‘to replicate the 

arbitrary and capricious interpretation 

the [AIR] court invalidated.’’ 

Response to Comment 2: In relevant 

part, the Bahr and Sierra Club decisions 

stand for the proposition that 

contingency measures under CAA 

section 172(c)(9) must be conditional 

and prospective, and thus, alreadyimplemented control measures cannot 

serve as contingency measures. The AIR 

decision stands for the proposition that 

surplus emission reductions from 

already-implemented measures cannot 

be relied upon as a justification for 

adoption of contingency measures that 

provide for less than the recommended 

amount of emission reductions for such 

measures. However, none of the cited 

court decisions bear on the questions of 

the amount of emission reductions that 

contingency measures should achieve, 

the timeline for achieving the emission 

reductions from contingency measures, 

or the consideration of feasibility of 

additional measures as justification for 

not adopting contingency measures 

sufficient to achieve the recommended 

amount of such measures. 

Moreover, our proposed approval of 

the SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP 

is consistent with the three cited 

decisions in that the SIP relies on 

contingency measures (Residential 

Wood Burning Contingency Measure, 

the Rural Open Areas Contingency 

Measures, and the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure) that are designed 

to be conditional and prospective. In 

addition, as discussed further in the 

following paragraph, the State has not 

relied on emission reductions from 

already-implemented measures. 

The rationale for our approval of the 

SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP is 

not the same as the rationale for our 

approval, later withdrawn in response 

to the AIR decision, of the contingency 

measure element for San Joaquin Valley 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was at 

issue in the AIR case. In the case of the 

contingency measure element for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA took into 

account the surplus emission reductions 

from already-implemented measures in 

the milestone years and the years 

following the attainment date, not as 

constituting contingency measures per 

se, but rather, as justification for 

approving a contingency measure 

element that included a single 

contingency measure that would 

provide for far less than the 

recommended amount. 

The Court found that, by doing so, the 

EPA had ‘‘severed the relationship 

between the requirement of contingency 

measures and the benchmark of 

reasonable further progress, without an 

adequate explanation of why the new— 

and far more modest—contingency 

measure is reasonable.’’ 38 The Court did 

not indicate that the Agency could not 

depart from previous guidance but 

cautioned that the EPA ‘‘must give a 

reasoned explanation for departing from 

agency practice or policy.’’ 39 The Court 

concluded that ‘‘[I]f alreadyimplemented measures cannot 

themselves be contingency measures— 

and Bahr makes clear that they cannot— 

then neither can they be a basis for 

declining to establish contingency 

measures that would otherwise be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80755 

40 Id. 

41 Id. at 947. 

42EPA’s Draft Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance, pp. 21–28 (revised metric) and pp. 29– 

40 (reasoned justification for adoption of 

contingency measures that provide for less than the 

recommended amount of emission reductions). 

43By ‘‘changed circumstances,’’ we are referring 

to recent court decisions that have invalidated key 

aspects of EPA’s historical approach to 

implementing the contingency measure 

requirement and the evolution toward more 

stringent control programs in the 30 years since the 

EPA first articulated its contingency measure 

guidance where, as described in Response to 

Comments 3, the progressively stringent control 

measures adopted to meet prior attainment and RFP 

planning requirements are already implemented 

measures and therefore ineligible to serve as 

contingency measures and result in a narrowing 

pool of candidate contingency measures. 

appropriate.’’ 40 The Court rejected the 

EPA’s rationale for allowing 

consideration of surplus emission 

reductions from already-implemented 

measures, reasoning that the EPA could 

not approve a contingency measure 

element ‘‘lacking robust contingency 

measures by assuming that they will not 

be needed. Because the agency did not 

provide a reasoned explanation for 

approving the state plan, the rule is 

arbitrary and capricious.’’ 41

In the wake of the AIR decision, and 

other case law interpreting the 

contingency measure SIP requirement, 

the EPA undertook an internal process 

to reconsider previous guidance 

provided by the Agency to states for 

preparation of SIP submissions to meet 

the contingency measure 

requirements—a process that led to the 

publication of the Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance. Among 

other things, in the Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance, the 

EPA explains why the Agency believes 

that it is appropriate to update its prior 

guidance with respect to the 

recommended amount of emission 

reductions that contingency measures 

should achieve and the considerations 

that states could use to justify adoption 

of contingency measures that do not 

provide for the recommended amount of 

emission reductions.42 We found that an 

update to our contingency measures 

guidance was justified in light of 

changed factual circumstances 43 and a 

current understanding of what 

remaining controls may be available for 

states to adopt as contingency measures. 

For a more detailed explanation of our 

rationale for updating the metric, see 

Response to Comment 1, and for a more 

detailed explanation for allowing for 

consideration of feasibility, see 

Response to Comment 4. 

With respect to this action, CARB and 

the District have adopted a contingency 

measure element that includes three 

contingency measures that would 

collectively achieve the recommended 

amount of emission reductions for one 

of the two pollutants or precursors at 

issue, and they have provided a 

reasoned justification in the form of 

infeasibility demonstrations for 

adopting contingency measures that 

provide for less than the recommended 

amount for the other relevant pollutant 

or precursor. The EPA’s approval of a 

contingency measure element that 

relies, in part, on CARB and the 

District’s infeasibility demonstrations, 

rather than relying on surplus emission 

reductions from already-implemented 

measures, stands in contrast to the EPA 

action on the SIP submission at issue in 

AIR. The EPA does not assume that 

contingency measures would not be 

needed for San Joaquin Valley but rather 

that CARB and the District have 

adequately demonstrated that there are 

no feasible contingency measures for 

that particular pollutant or precursor 

that are left to adopt or that could be 

implemented within one to two years of 

the triggering event. 

Comment 3: For areas with more 

severe air pollution, such as Serious 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the 

commenters state that the EPA has not 

articulated a reasoned justification for 

why OYW of progress is consistent with 

the CAA remedial scheme that imposes 

more stringent requirements on such 

areas. They suggest that a voluntary 

reclassification of an area (e.g., from 

‘‘Moderate’’ to ‘‘Serious’’ for PM2.5) 

would lower the average annual 

reductions needed for contingency 

measures (e.g., if the same attainment 

year inventory applied for a Moderate or 

Serious areas, then the annual average 

reduction would be lower due to 

averaging over more years). 

In addition, the commenters illustrate 

a purported fatal flaw in the EPA’s 

interpretation of OYW of progress using 

a table that shows OYW of progress for 

NOX in a hypothetical ozone 

reclassification from Serious to Extreme 

(in tons per day of NOX) and state that 

a lesser amount of emission reductions 

for contingency measures for such 

hypothetical Extreme ozone 

nonattainment area runs contrary to the 

structure of the Act. 

Response to Comment 3: As explained 

in more detail in our Response to 

Comment 1, with respect to this specific 

action, the use of the new OYW of 

progress metric here does not materially 

impact our approval where the SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP falls 

short of the emissions reductions 

recommended under either metric. 

However, we note that, contrary to 

commenters’ assertions, the EPA’s 

interpretation of the contingency 

measure requirement under CAA 

section 172(c)(9) is consistent with the 

CAA’s general scheme of subjecting 

areas with higher classifications to more 

stringent requirements. More 

specifically, the increased stringency 

relates to the types of measures that 

qualify as contingency measures rather 

than the amount of emission reductions 

that such measures must achieve. 

Under the EPA’s interpretation of the 

contingency measure requirement, 

contingency measures must be designed 

to provide emission reductions (if 

triggered) that are not otherwise 

required to meet other attainment plan 

requirements and not relied upon to 

demonstrate RFP nor attainment. Thus, 

for example, contingency measures in 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate, which are thereby subject to 

the reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) requirement, must be 

measures that go beyond the RACM 

requirement, whereas contingency 

measures in PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

classified as Serious (and thus subject to 

the best available control measures 

(BACM) requirement) must be measures 

that go beyond the BACM requirement. 

In other words, reclassification of an 

area to a higher classification shrinks 

the pool of candidate contingency 

measures because some of the candidate 

contingency measures will be required 

to be adopted and implemented in the 

reclassified area to meet the specific 

control requirements for that 

classification and, thus, will be 

unavailable for adoption as contingency 

measures. The candidate contingency 

measures that remain eligible to meet 

the contingency measure SIP 

requirement under the higher 

classification are different, and 

potentially more stringent, than those 

that had been available to meet the 

requirement under the lower 

classification. While more stringent 

measures would achieve further 

emission reductions, if triggered, they 

may achieve a smaller scale of emission 

reductions than the prior iterations of 

increasingly stringent control measures 

on a given emission source; stringency 

(a relative measure) is not the same as 

tons per day of emission reductions (an 

absolute measure). 

Regarding the commenters’ assertion 

that areas with more severe air pollution 

should have contingency measures that 

achieve a larger amount of emission 

reductions (i.e., OYW of RFP), we look 

once more to the broader framing of 

contingency measures within the overall 

planning requirements for 

nonattainment areas. The EPA finds that 

the statutory and regulatory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80756 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

44SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, section 

4.1 (‘‘Stringency of District’s Regulatory Program’’) 

and section 5.2 (‘‘CARB’s Opportunities for 

Contingency Measures’’). 

45SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, pp. 53–54. 

46CAA section 188(b)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.1002(b)(1). 

47 88 FR 87988, 87994 and EPA’s Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance, p. 29. 

requirements to demonstrate attainment 

as expeditiously as practicable, and the 

absence of a specific statutory metric for 

how much emission reductions 

contingency measures should achieve, 

give priority to adopting control 

measures to attain in the first place, 

even if that leaves fewer options for 

contingency measures in the event of a 

failure to attain or to make RFP. 

In the SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure 

SIP, the State elaborates further on using 

an attainment-focused metric by 

highlighting the scarcity of potential 

control measures that would qualify as 

contingency measures given the facts 

and circumstances of the San Joaquin 

Valley,44 where the progressively 

stringent set of control measures 

adopted to meet prior attainment and 

RFP planning requirements are already 

implemented measures and therefore 

ineligible to serve as contingency 

measures.45 This scarcity concept 

echoes the tension between the CAA 

requirements for attainment and 

contingency measures, and the 

prioritization of adopting measures to 

attain in the first place. 

Notwithstanding, the EPA does not 

endorse the scarcity concept as a 

starting point, but rather recommends 

the detailed analytical approach to 

identifying and evaluating potential 

control measures that can serve as 

contingency measures, as described in 

the Draft Revised Contingency Measures 

Guidance, and that the State employed 

in developing the PM2.5 Contingency 

Measure SIP. 

Regarding the commenters’ suggestion 

that a state could reduce the amount of 

emission reductions needed for 

contingency measures by requesting a 

voluntary reclassification that would 

extend the amount of time to attain 

while relying on the same level of 

emission reductions, we disagree that 

such an action runs contrary to the 

general remedial scheme of the CAA 

that imposes more stringent 

requirements on reclassified areas. 

Under the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for PM2.5, a State may 

request reclassification from Moderate 

to Serious, but only where it can show 

that it is impracticable to attain by the 

Moderate area attainment year.46 Thus, 

a combination of direct PM2.5 and plan 

precursor emission reductions that 

would achieve attainment would 

constrain the ability of the State to seek 

such reclassification—it would instead 

be practicable to attain by the Moderate 

area attainment date. Similarly, if the 

Moderate area attainment year were 

approaching and air quality for two of 

three design value years indicated that 

the area would not achieve the standard, 

then the air quality basis resulting from 

prior attainment planning would be 

insufficient to attain. In either case, the 

State would need to develop a Serious 

area plan that achieves additional 

emission reductions and also addresses 

the additional control requirements for 

Serious areas (e.g., tighter new source 

review requirements, BACM and best 

available control technology (BACT), 

and, if the State were to seek an 

attainment date extension under CAA 

section 188(e), most stringent measures 

(MSM)). 

For these reasons, as well as those 

described in Response to Comment 1 of 

this document, we conclude that the 

EPA’s revised metric for contingency 

measure emission reductions (OYW of 

progress) does not run contrary to the 

general remedial scheme of the CAA 

that imposes more stringent 

requirements on areas reclassified to a 

higher classification. Lastly, the EPA 

finds that the comment on a 

hypothetical scenario for an ozone 

nonattainment area is outside the scope 

of this rulemaking because we are not 

acting on ozone contingency measure 

SIP submissions in this action. 

Comment 4: Regarding feasibility 

assessments, the Valley EJ Organizations 

state that the CAA does not subject the 

contingency measure requirements to a 

feasibility standard and reject the State’s 

and the EPA’s proposed reliance on 

infeasibility demonstrations. The 

commenters argue that Congress made 

no exceptions to the contingency 

measure requirements nor did it provide 

authority to relax those requirements 

based on technological or economic 

challenges. They state that the CAA 

requirements for RACM or reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

include a ‘‘reasonably available’’ 

qualifier and that those for MSM are 

expressly limited to ‘‘feasible’’ 

measures, while such terms do not 

appear in the CAA requirements for 

contingency measures. They contend 

that the EPA conflates the contingency 

measure requirements with the primary 

requirements to attain the NAAQS in 

the first place. They further state that 

Congress expressly provided limited 

authority to relax the CAA requirements 

for RFP but did not do so for 

contingency measures. 

The commenters state that the RACM 

requirements (under CAA sections 

172(c)(1), 181(a)(1), and 188(c)(1)) 

require that the primary attainment 

strategy include ‘‘all’’ RACM and other 

available control measures that would 

expedite attainment and that the MSM 

provision (for Serious PM2.5

nonattainment areas that cannot attain 

the standards within 10 years, under 

CAA section 188(e)) requires additional 

control measure implementation. They 

argue that contingency measures should 

not comprise the same controls that the 

CAA already requires for attainment and 

that failed to attain the NAAQS in the 

first place and that the EPA unlawfully 

and arbitrarily excuses contingency 

measures needed when the feasible 

measures the State has already adopted 

result in a failure to attain the NAAQS 

(citing AIR, 10 F.4th at 946). 

Given these alleged flaws in the EPA’s 

interpretation, the commenters state that 

the EPA’s proposed approval violates 

the plain meaning of the CAA 

contingency measure requirement, fails 

to reasonably explain the Agency’s 

relaxation of the emission reductions 

that contingency measures must 

provide, and is therefore arbitrary and 

capricious. 

Response to Comment 4: As discussed 

in Response to Comment 1, Congress 

must have at least implicitly delegated 

to the EPA the authority to determine an 

amount of emissions reductions that 

contingency measures should achieve 

and thereby give meaning to the 

requirement and provide states with a 

basis to comply with CAA section 

172(c)(9) for a given nonattainment area. 

The EPA is continuing to take a policy 

approach to this question and is 

recommending OYW of progress and 

describing a specific analytical 

framework that states may use to 

develop a reasoned justification if the 

state is unable to identify and adopt 

contingency measures that can achieve 

the recommended amount of emissions 

reductions. More specifically, as stated 

in our proposed rule and the EPA’s 

Draft Revised Contingency Measures 

Guidance, where a state is unable to 

identify contingency measures that 

would provide approximately OYW of 

emission reductions, the state should 

provide a reasoned justification 

(referred to herein as an ‘‘infeasibility 

demonstration’’) that explains and 

documents how it has evaluated all 

existing and potential control measures 

relevant to the appropriate source 

categories and pollutants in the 

nonattainment area and has reached 

reasonable conclusions regarding 

whether such measures are feasible.47

Thus, while the EPA acknowledges that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80757 

48 Id. 

49 Id. 

50Moreover, we note that contingency measures 

under CAA section 172(c)(9), once triggered, are 

generally permanent and become one of the 

baseline control measures for the next milestone 

demonstration or the new attainment plan that must 

be adopted and submitted by the state for an area 

that has failed to attain the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. As noted in this 

document, technological and economic feasibility is 

a hallmark of such control measures. In contrast, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to adopt 

and submit contingency plans to address emergency 

episodes as part of their SIPs, and the contingency 

plans for emergency episodes identify emission 

control actions to be taken at different episode 

levels, which are much higher than the NAAQS, 

without consideration of economic or technological 

feasibility. See, generally, 40 CFR 51.150–51.152 

and appendix L to 40 CFR part 51. One significant 

difference, however, between the emission control 

actions for emergency episode plans under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) and the control measures relied 

upon for RFP and attainment is that the former are 

temporary and are implemented only while the 

emergency episode persists whereas the latter are, 

as noted, permanent controls for the area. 

51EPA’s Draft Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance, p. 31. 52EPA’s Draft Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance, p. 31. 53 88 FR 86581 (December 14, 2023) (approving 

the State’s demonstrations for BACM and five 

percent annual emission reductions under CAA 

section 189(d) for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS); 

87 FR 4503 (January 28, 2022) (approving the 

State’s BACM demonstration for the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS); and 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020) 

(approving the State’s demonstrations for BACM 

and MSM for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). 

54 88 FR 87988, 88000–88001 (summary of State’s 

feasibility analyses), and 88005–88009 (the EPA’s 

evaluation of the State’s feasibility analyses). See 

also Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, 

pp. 40–42. 

55 88 FR 87988, 88008–88009. 

CAA section 172(c)(9) does not 

explicitly provide for consideration of 

whether specific measures are feasible, 

the EPA does not read the statute to 

require air agencies to adopt and impose 

infeasible measures.48

As stated in the proposed rule, the 

statutory provisions applicable to other 

nonattainment area plan control 

measure requirements, including 

RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM, 

allow air agencies to exclude certain 

control measures that are deemed 

unreasonable or infeasible (depending 

on the requirement).49 For example, the 

MSM provision in CAA section 188(e) 

requires plans to include ‘‘the most 

stringent measures that are included in 

the implementation plan of any state or 

are achieved in practice in any state, 

and can feasibly be implemented in the 

area.’’ While the contingency measures 

provisions do not include such caveats, 

the EPA does not conclude that the 

contingency measures provisions 

should be read to require plans to 

include infeasible measures. Thus, the 

EPA anticipates that a demonstrated 

lack of feasible measures would be a 

reasoned justification for adopting 

contingency measures that achieve less 

than the recommended amount of 

emission reductions.50

The EPA does not, as the commenters 

suggest, simply conflate the contingency 

measure requirements with other 

control requirements (e.g., RACM/ 

RACT, BACM/BACT, and MSM) that are 

integral to demonstrating attainment of 

the ozone and/or PM2.5 NAAQS. Rather, 

while the analytical approach to 

identifying and evaluating existing and 

potential control measures may be 

similar to those used for RACM/RACT, 

BACM/BACT, and MSM (e.g., 

identifying the universe of control 

devices that can reduce NOX emissions 

from combustion equipment and 

whether they are technologically and 

economically feasible as applied to a 

specific type of emission source in the 

area), the EPA expects that the state 

‘‘should not simply repeat the control 

strategy’s infeasibility showing.’’ 51 The 

contingency measure requirement is in 

addition to the other control measure 

requirements. 

A conclusion that a measure is not 

reasonable or feasible, for example, for 

RACM does not automatically disqualify 

it as a potential contingency measure. If 

the state identifies control measures that 

it determines are not needed to attain 

nor to collectively advance attainment, 

those measures would not be required to 

satisfy the RACM requirement but 

would remain as candidates for 

contingency measures. To the extent 

that the adopted contingency measures 

achieve a small amount of emission 

reductions, the state should provide a 

more robust infeasibility showing that 

there are no additional feasible 

contingency measures that could 

achieve the recommended amount of 

reductions.52 Furthermore, to the extent 

that the state’s analyses and 

development of contingency measures 

occur after the state’s analyses and 

development of the SIP submissions to 

meet the attainment control strategy 

requirements of the CAA (including 

associated control requirements and 

RFP), the state should update their 

analyses to reflect the latest potential 

control measures. 

In the case of the SJV PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP, submitted in 

2023, CARB and the District 

documented their analyses to identify 

and evaluate potential control measures 

that might serve as contingency 

measures. These analyses are updated 

relative to their 2021 submission of the 

Serious area attainment plan for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to their 

2019 submissions of the Serious area 

attainment plan for the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (including BACM 

demonstration), Serious area plan for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(including demonstrations for BACM 

and MSM), and Moderate area plan for 

the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

(including RACM demonstration). The 

EPA has approved these attainment plan 

control strategies in successive 

actions 53 and they represent an overall 

stringent set of control requirements. 

The State did not set aside measures for 

lack of their ability to collectively 

advance attainment (as might be 

possible in theory, e.g., for RACM for an 

ozone nonattainment area). 

In their updated analyses, CARB and 

the District considered the wide range of 

emission sources under their primary 

jurisdiction, identified potential control 

measures, analyzed their technological 

and economic feasibility, and assessed 

whether they could achieve emission 

reductions within one to two years of a 

triggering event, consistent with the 

EPA’s discussion of the timing objective 

inherent to the contingency measure 

requirement.54 For the potential control 

measures identified through this 

process, the District further analyzed 

possible contingency measures for wood 

burning fireplaces and wood burning 

heaters, rural open areas, commercial 

charbroiling, almond harvesting, and oil 

and gas production combustion 

equipment, and ultimately adopted the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure and the Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measure. 

CARB, in turn, made a reasonable 

case that new engine standards and new 

fleet requirements require more time to 

implement than would be appropriate 

for contingency measures (i.e., would 

exceed one to two years after a 

triggering event) and that the State’s 

technology-forcing and zero-emissionbased nature of its mobile source 

regulations reduce or eliminate 

opportunities for yet-further emission 

reductions that could qualify as 

contingency measures.55 Nevertheless, 

through its process CARB ultimately 

adopted the Smog Check Contingency 

Measure. 

The three contingency measures 

proposed for approval stand in contrast 

to the commenters’ argument that the 

feasibility assessment process put 

forward in the EPA’s Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance, in the 

State’s 2023 SIP Submissions, and the 

EPA’s proposed approval thereof would 

simply re-employ the control measures 

originally employed to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Furthermore, in many instances the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80758 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

56 88 FR 87988, 88007, and EPA’s Reasoned 

Justification TSD, pp. 43–51. 57 88 FR 87988, 88007, and EPA’s Reasoned 

Justification TSD, pp. 43–51. 58 88 FR 87988, 88008, and EPA’s Reasoned 

Justification TSD, chapter V. 

59 88 FR 87988, 88008, and EPA’s Reasoned 

Justification TSD, pp. 9–22. 

60 88 FR 87988, 88008, and EPA’s Reasoned 

Justification TSD, pp. 9–22. 

61 89 FR 56222, 56224–56225. 

62 Id. 

reason for which the EPA agreed with 

the State for not adopting a potential 

control measure as a contingency 

measure was not based on any 

affirmation that a measure was 

economically infeasible, but rather was 

based on other reasons. In evaluating 

CARB and the District’s infeasibility 

demonstrations in the SJV PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP, we relied 

heavily on the ‘‘EPA Source Category 

and Control Measure Assessment and 

Reasoned Justification Technical 

Support Document, Proposed 

Contingency Measures Federal 

Implementation Plan for the Fine 

Particulate Matter Standards for San 

Joaquin Valley, California,’’ July 2023 

(‘‘EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD’’) 

given its breadth and depth, as well as 

the expertise of EPA Region IX staff, to 

review the State’s demonstrations, 

understand where the State’s analyses 

and the EPA’s analyses draw largely 

similar conclusions, and identify those 

source categories where the control 

measure analyses differ. 

For example, for the potential control 

measure of requiring electric water 

heaters and furnaces at point of sale, the 

EPA determined that such a measure 

would not be feasible because we expect 

that it would result in negligible 

emission reductions within two years 

after trigger, consistent with the 

District’s suggestion that the attritionbased nature of implementation of this 

contingency measure option deem the 

measure infeasible.56 For the potential 

control measure of requiring low-dust 

almond harvesters, the EPA determined 

that such a measure would be infeasible 

based only on the timing of emission 

reductions.57

For the potential control measure of 

requiring the installation of control 

devices on commercial under-fired 

charbroilers, the EPA determined that 

such measure would be infeasible based 

on fire safety certification concerns and 

lack of demonstrated implementation of 

controls.58 For the potential control 

measure of lower NOX emission limits 

on oil and gas production equipment 

with a total rated heat input of greater 

than 5.0 million Btu per hour, the EPA 

determined that it would be 

technologically infeasible to meet the 

lower limits within the two-year 

timeframe for contingency measures due 

to the likely requirement that affected 

units would need to install selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) devices to 

meet the lower limits (i.e., the planning, 

engineering, and installation of SCR 

would take more than two years).59

Similarly, for the potential control 

measure of lower NOX emission limits 

for boilers, steam generators, and 

process heaters with a total rated heat 

input of 5.0 million Btu per hour or less, 

the EPA expects that units required to 

meet lower limits than those already 

adopted in Rules 4307 and 4308 would 

require installation of SCR, which 

cannot be feasibly achieved within the 

two-year timeframe for contingency 

measures.60

In sum, the EPA maintains that it does 

not read the statute to require air 

agencies to adopt and impose infeasible 

measures. Furthermore, as applied to 

the SIP submissions subject to this 

rulemaking, we continue to find that the 

State’s three contingency measures for 

the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 

annual, 2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, in conjunction with the 

State’s infeasibility demonstrations that 

adequately justify the contingency 

measures selected by the State, meet the 

contingency measure requirement under 

CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1014. 

Comment 5: The Valley EJ 

Organizations assert that the EPA 

unlawfully and arbitrarily proposes 

approval of the PM2.5 contingency 

measures based on the Agency’s new 

interpretation in the Draft Revised 

Contingency Measures Guidance by 

extending the implementation period 

from one year to two years. 

Response to Comment 5: With respect 

to the issue of extending the period in 

which the emission reductions from 

contingency measures can be 

considered in meeting the contingency 

measure SIP requirement, we note that 

the commenters raise this particular 

objection to the EPA’s proposed 

approval in a single sentence and fail to 

elaborate on how extending the time 

period for achieving the emission 

reductions from contingency measures 

from one to two years conflicts with the 

CAA or the EPA’s implementing 

regulations. 

In this instance, we proposed, and are 

now taking final action, to approve two 

specific contingency measures (the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measures and the Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measures), both of which, 

if triggered, will achieve emission 

reductions within a year of the 

triggering event. Our approval of the 

2023 SIP Submissions as meeting the 

contingency measure SIP requirement 

for San Joaquin Valley for the relevant 

PM2.5 NAAQS also relies on emission 

reductions from a third contingency 

measure (the Smog Check Contingency 

Measure) that we have approved in a 

separate action. 

As explained in the EPA’s final rule 

on CARB’s Smog Check Contingency 

Measure, the emission reductions from 

the Smog Check Contingency Measure 

may not be fully achieved until the 

second year after the triggering event.61

However, as further explained in that 

final rule, and consistent with the Draft 

Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance, in instances where there are 

insufficient contingency measures 

available to achieve the recommended 

amount of emission reductions within 

one year of the triggering event, 

contingency measures that provide 

reductions within two years of the 

triggering event could be appropriate to 

consider toward achieving the 

recommended amount of emission 

reductions.62 Contingency measures 

that result in additional emission 

reductions during the second year 

following the triggering event, as 

contemplated by the Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance, can 

still serve the important purpose of 

contingency measures to continue 

progress toward attainment, as the State 

develops and submits, and the EPA acts 

on, a SIP submission to address the 

underlying condition (e.g., failure to 

make RFP or to attain by the applicable 

attainment date) that triggered the 

contingency measures in the first place. 

Comment 6: The Valley EJ 

Organizations state that, after a first 

triggering event, the EPA unlawfully 

and arbitrarily allows California 

discretion in adopting further 

contingency measures, fails to evaluate 

whether the emission reductions to 

follow a second triggering event would 

meet either OYW of RFP or OYW of 

progress, and allows California to 

‘‘ ‘double dip’ for contingency measure 

purposes’’ without enforceable 

provisions that would require adoption 

and submission of additional 

contingency measures. 

Response to Comment 6: Our 

approval relates to the SIP requirements 

for contingency measures under CAA 

section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for 

the 1997 annual, 2006 24-hour and 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the 

applicable requirements, states with 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas must provide 

contingency measures that can be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80759 

63 88 FR 87988, 87995. 

64 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix J, 60. 

65 85 FR 44192. 

66 86 FR 67343. 

triggered in the event of a failure to meet 

any RFP requirement in an attainment 

plan, to meet any quantitative milestone 

in an attainment plan, to submit a 

quantitative milestone report, or to 

attain the applicable PM2.5 NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date. 

Neither the CAA nor the EPA’s 

regulations specify a minimum number 

of contingency measures or prescribe 

separate contingency measures for 

different contingency measure triggers. 

The CAA and the EPA’s regulations also 

do not preclude the reliance on the 

same contingency measures for separate 

NAAQS, and the commenter does not 

identify any specific statutory or 

regulatory requirement that does so. 

Moreover, it is not uncommon for a state 

or district to rely on a core set of control 

measures for multiple NAAQS. For 

example, the State and District rely on 

a core set of NOX control measures as 

part of the control strategies for 

demonstrating RFP and attainment for 

both ozone and PM2.5 in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Regardless, we acknowledge that 

neither the State nor District has 

submitted an enforceable commitment 

to submit additional contingency 

measures in response to the triggering of 

the contingency measures. The EPA 

does not believe that such commitment 

is required. 

In this instance, the 2023 SIP 

Submissions rely on three contingency 

measures, all of which provide for an 

initial triggering event and two of which 

provide for a second triggering event. In 

other words, all three contingency 

measures provide for implementation of 

more stringent requirements upon a first 

triggering event, and two of the 

contingency measures also provide for 

implementation of yet more stringent 

requirements upon a second triggering 

event (i.e., further tightening of the 

requirements beyond that triggered by 

the first event). 

While the EPA is not requiring CARB 

or the District to provide separate 

contingency measures for each of the 

triggering events or separate 

contingency measures for different 

PM2.5 NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley, we 

find that a SIP deficiency would arise 

upon the first triggering event 

notwithstanding the existence of the 

built-in provisions for further 

reductions upon a second triggering 

event. This is because the adequacy of 

the contingency measure SIP depended 

on measures that are now being 

implemented as a result of the first 

triggering event, meaning they can no 

longer be used to satisfy the contingency 

measure requirements for subsequent 

triggering events. In response, we expect 

that CARB and the District would adopt 

and submit a SIP revision within one 

year of the triggering event to 

demonstrate that the SIP continues to 

meet contingency measure 

requirements. We would also expect the 

SIP revision to take into account the 

emission reductions from the two 

remaining contingency measures and to 

include additional contingency 

measures as needed to ensure that the 

San Joaquin Valley continues to meet 

the contingency measure requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1014. 

Comment 7: CVAQ asserts that the 

‘‘hot spot’’ approach under District Rule 

4901, ‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and 

Wood Burning Heaters,’’ ‘‘cannot meet 

the basic control measure requirements 

of the [CAA]’’ and that the emission 

reductions from expanding applicability 

to previously exempt areas would not be 

surplus to the controls that should be 

required in the San Joaquin Valley. If, 

however, residential wood burning is to 

be used as a contingency measure, 

CVAQ contends that the contingency 

measure in Rule 4901 should ban all 

non-essential wood burning. CVAQ 

further contends that the District must 

adopt contingency measures that would 

achieve OYW of RFP emission 

reductions in each county of the San 

Joaquin Valley to protect its most 

vulnerable communities. In addition, 

citing comments made by residents 

during 2023 District workshops that 

report incidents of poor enforcement of 

the rule, CVAQ asserts that Rule 4901 

has no assurance of actual emission 

reductions and no concrete 

commitments for enforcement. CVAQ 

advocates for accountability measures to 

ensure actual emission reductions and 

enforcement of residential wood 

burning regulations. 

Response to Comment 7: The EPA 

maintains that the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 meets the 

contingency measure requirements and 

provides reasonable assurance of 

emission reductions. As explained in 

our proposed rule,63 Rule 4901 includes 

a tiered mandatory curtailment program 

that establishes different curtailment 

thresholds based on the type of devices 

(i.e., registered clean-burning devices 

vs. unregistered devices) and different 

counties (i.e., ‘‘hot spot’’ vs. non-hot 

spot), notwithstanding narrow 

exemptions (e.g., for households where 

a wood burning fireplace or heater is the 

sole source of heat, per section 5.7.4.2 

of Rule 4901). During a ‘‘Level One 

Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment,’’ 

operation of wood-burning fireplaces 

and other unregistered wood-burning 

heaters or devices is prohibited, but 

properly operated, registered woodburning heaters may be used. During a 

‘‘Level Two Episodic Wood Burning 

Curtailment,’’ operation of any woodburning device is prohibited. 

In 2019, the District lowered the 

curtailment thresholds in Madera, 

Fresno, and Kern counties, which the 

District identified as hot spot counties, 

because they were ‘‘either new areas of 

gas utility or areas deemed to have 

persistently poor air quality.’’ 64 Table 4 

presents the wood burning curtailment 

thresholds in Rule 4901, as revised in 

2019. 

TABLE 4—RESIDENTIAL WOOD BURNING CURTAILMENT THRESHOLDS IN RULE 4901 

[as amended in 2019] 

Episodic wood burning 

curtailment levels 

Hot spot counties 

(Madera, Fresno, and Kern) 

Non-hot spot counties 

(San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Kings, and 

Tulare) 

Level One (No Burning Unless Registered) ....... 12 μg/m3 .......................................................... 20 μg/m3. 

Level Two (No Burning for All) ........................... 35 μg/m3 .......................................................... 65 μg/m3. 

Contrary to the commenters’ assertion 

that the hot spot approach cannot meet 

the basic control measure requirements 

of the CAA, the EPA approved the 

State’s demonstration for Rule 4901 

(2019 amendments) as BACM and MSM 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,65 as 

RACM for the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS,66 and as BACM for the 1997 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80760 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

67 88 FR 86581. 

68 Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, Case 

No. 20–72780, Dkt. #58–1 (9th Cir., April 13, 2022), 

pp. 8–9. 

69Based on the estimates included in Table 2 

(revised) in this final rule, NOX reductions from the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency Measure 

would be approximately 14% of the reductions of 

direct PM2.5. 

70SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, section 

4.2 (‘‘District Feasibility Analysis’’), pp. 26–31. 

71 88 FR 87988, 88005–88006, and the EPA’s 

Reasoned Justification TSD. For our discussion of 

the EPA’s evaluation of a potential wood burning 

ban, see p. 82 of the EPA’s Reasoned Justification 

TSD. 

72EPA’s Draft Revised Contingency Measures 

Guidance, pp. 23–24. Notwithstanding, for 

informational purposes we note that the EPA 

considered the geographic scope of each of the three 

contingency measures proposed for approval, 

including the Residential Wood Burning 

Contingency Measure. 88 FR 87988, 88010–88011. 

73SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, Appendix 

J (‘‘Comments and Response’’). 

74SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, Appendix 

C (‘‘Emission Reduction Analysis for Rule 4901’’), 

C–7. 

75EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, section II 

(‘‘Combustion: Residential Wood Burning’’), pp. 5– 

6. 

76See, e.g. SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Report On 2021–2022 

Winter Residential Woodsmoke Reduction,’’ April 

21, 2022 (‘‘District’s 2022 Report’’), pp. 19–28. 

77 District’s 2022 Report, pp. 26–28. 

78SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Report on 2023–2024 Winter 

Residential Woodsmoke Reduction Strategy,’’ 

PowerPoint presentation prepared for SJVUAPCD 

Citizens Advisory Committee, June 4, 2024, slide 

16. For summary information concerning 

enforcement of Rule 4901 in previous seasons, see 

SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Report On 2022–2023 Winter 

Residential Woodsmoke Reduction,’’ April 20, 

2023, p. 28. 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS.67 In 2022, the 

Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA’s 

approval of the State’s BACM and MSM 

demonstration for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, including those relating 

to residential wood burning.68

Therefore, the hot spot approach in Rule 

4901 (2019 amendments), as applied to 

the particular facts and circumstances of 

the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 

annual, 2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, meets the applicable 

control requirements for controlling 

direct PM2.5 emissions from residential 

wood burning. 

The Residential Wood Burning 

Contingency Measure (i.e., the 2023 

amendments to Rule 4901) would, upon 

a first triggering event, lower the 

thresholds for the five non-hot spot 

counties to match those of the hot spot 

counties (i.e., 12 mg/m3 for Level One 

Curtailment and 35 mg/m3 for a Level 

Two Curtailment) and the emission 

reductions in those five counties would 

be surplus because lowering the 

thresholds for the five non-hot spot 

counties would go beyond the 

requirements of Rule 4901, as amended 

in 2019, that the EPA has approved as 

meeting RACM, BACM, and MSM. 

Furthermore, upon a second triggering 

event, the Level One Curtailment 

threshold would be further lowered to 

11 mg/m3 for all eight counties in the 

San Joaquin Valley, resulting in further 

emission reductions that would be 

surplus to the already implemented 

measure and surplus to the reductions 

from the first triggering event. 

We note that the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure would 

alone, if triggered, achieve 0.5793 tpd 

direct PM2.5 emission reductions, which 

would exceed OYW of RFP (per EPA’s 

long-standing approach) and OYW of 

progress (per EPA’s draft revised 

approach) for direct PM2.5 emissions in 

the San Joaquin Valley. Given that the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure is primarily a control for direct 

PM2.5,69 and that it would achieve the 

recommended amount of reductions for 

that pollutant (in terms of OYW of RFP 

or OYW of progress), the District was 

not required to restrict residential wood 

burning further than what the District 

has chosen to do for the purposes of 

meeting the contingency measure SIP 

requirements for the relevant PM2.5

NAAQS. Thus, the District was not 

required to include a ban on all nonessential wood burning to meet the 

contingency measure SIP requirements. 

Furthermore, in reviewing the District’s 

evaluation of potential control measures 

for residential wood burning,70 we 

relied heavily on the EPA’s detailed 

evaluation of source categories and 

measures that we considered as 

potential additional contingency 

measures as part of our federal 

implementation plan (FIP) proposal but 

determined to be infeasible or otherwise 

unsuitable for contingency measures.71

Regarding the commenters’ 

contention that the District must adopt 

contingency measures that would 

achieve OYW of RFP emission 

reductions in each county of the San 

Joaquin Valley, we reiterate that CAA 

section 172(c)(9) does not specify what 

amount of emission reductions 

contingency measures should achieve, 

much less whether contingency 

measures should achieve particular 

amounts of emission reductions within 

geographical regions within a 

nonattainment area (e.g., in each 

county). In both our long-standing 

interpretation and draft revised 

interpretation of the contingency 

measure requirement, the amount of 

emission reductions (e.g., OYW of 

progress) should be estimated for the 

nonattainment area as a whole, 

consistent with the emissions 

inventories for the base year, RFP years, 

and attainment year that are based on 

the whole area.72

Regarding comments on the 

enforceability of Rule 4901 and 

assurance of actual emission reductions, 

we note that the District included 

responses to similar comments received 

during the District’s public comment 

process on the public draft SJV PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP.73 We 

maintain that Rule 4901 is adequately 

enforceable and that the emission 

reductions are reasonably estimated, for 

the following reasons. The District 

explains the method it used to estimate 

the emission reductions from the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure, including its use of an 80% 

compliance rate.74 In calculating these 

estimates, the District incorporates data 

by county, device type (wood stoves and 

fireplaces), registration (unregistered vs. 

registered, which incorporates 

certification of cleaner-burning devices), 

fuel type (e.g., natural gas, wood, 

pellets), and average curtailment days 

with and without the contingency 

provisions. 

In evaluating the emission reductions 

estimates from the District, and as part 

of the EPA’s FIP proposal for PM2.5

contingency measures in the San 

Joaquin Valley,75 we found that an 80% 

control efficiency rate is reasonable in 

this case given the District’s extensive 

public outreach and enforcement of its 

curtailment program.76 The EPA 

concludes that the District’s method is 

a detailed and reasonable means to 

estimate the emission reductions from 

the Residential Wood Burning 

Contingency Measure. 

Regarding enforcement, the District 

states that it dedicates staff to both 

compliance assistance and enforcement 

and describes several aspects of its 

enforcement efforts.77 On curtailment 

days, District staff surveil 

neighborhoods, focus on areas where 

non-compliance is historically high or 

the subject of common complaints, and 

respond to complaints from the public. 

The District responds to complaints 

during business hours, weekends, 

holidays, and night-time hours and uses 

technology such as global positioning 

system (GPS) and low-light imaging 

cameras (for night-time enforcement) to 

assist their response. During the most 

recent wood burning season (November 

2023-February 2024), District staff spent 

approximately 3,500 hours on proactive 

monitoring and enforcement and issued 

470 notices of violation of Rule 4901.78

The EPA concludes that the District 

implements a reasonably robust 

enforcement program to ensure 

compliance with the wood burning 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80761 

79The definition of open areas is provided in 

Rule 8011, ‘‘General Requirements,’’ section 3.36 

(‘‘. . . vacant portions of residential or commercial 

lots and contiguous parcels that are immediately 

adjacent to and owned and/or operated by the same 

individual or entity are considered one open 

area. . .’’). 

80We note that Rule 4550, ‘‘Conservation 

Management Practices’’ includes fugitive dust 

control requirements for on-field agricultural 

operations in the San Joaquin Valley, but does not 

include provisions for FPMPs, unlike Rule 8081. 

Also, while there are provisions for FPMPs in Rule 

8061, ‘‘Paved and Unpaved Roads’’ and Rule 8071, 

‘‘Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas,’’ those 

rules pertain to non-agricultural roads and vehicle/ 

equipment traffic areas, respectively, rather than the 

agricultural operations referenced in the comments. 

81By definition under section 3.59 of Rule 8011, 

stabilization of unpaved roads and unpaved 

vehicle/equipment traffic areas requires that VDE be 

limited to 20% opacity. 

82 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004). We note that, at 

that time, EarthJustice compared the 20% opacity 

and other aspects of the control requirements in 

section 5.0 of Rule 8081 to the 50% control 

efficiency requirement and lack of 20% opacity 

requirement in the compliance alternative in 

section 7.0 of Rule 8081 and asserted that the FPMP 

compliance alternative should not be included. 69 

FR 30006, 30018. While we agreed that the FPMP 

alternative does not contain an explicit requirement 

for sources to comply with 20% opacity, it is 

unclear whether compliance with 20% opacity 

would necessarily increase control efficiency for 

unpaved roads or unpaved vehicle/equipment 

traffic areas above the minimum 50% control 

required under the FPMP provisions of Rule 8081. 

83SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, p. 25. 

84EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 109– 

114. 

prohibitions required when a Level One 

or Level Two Curtailment is called by 

the District. 

In sum, neither the District nor the 

EPA has assumed perfect compliance 

with the provisions of the Residential 

Wood Burning Contingency Measure 

(i.e., 100% control efficiency when a 

‘‘No Burn’’ day is called for a given 

geographic region within San Joaquin 

Valley); the District has provided 

reasonable assurance of 80% control 

efficiency based on its outreach, 

enforcement, and performance analyses; 

and the District reasonably estimates the 

amount of emission reductions to follow 

either a first triggering event (0.5793 tpd 

direct PM2.5 and 0.0817 tpd NOX) or a 

second triggering event (0.1078 tpd 

direct PM2.5 and 0.0148 tpd NOX). 

Therefore, we continue to find that the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure is adequately enforceable and 

its associated emission reductions are 

reasonably estimated. 

Comment 8: CVAQ states that the 

Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure 

is ‘‘essentially meaningless given that 

agricultural operations are exempt.’’ 

They note that agricultural operations 

can implement a Fugitive PM10

Management Plan (FPMP) as an 

alternative to compliance requirements 

and that a more meaningful contingency 

measure would enforce these FPMPs for 

all agricultural operations. 

Response to Comment 8: While the 

estimated emission reductions of 0.008 

tpd direct PM2.5 from the Rural Open 

Areas Contingency Measure are small, 

we disagree with the commenters’ 

characterization of the measure’s value. 

Specifically, section 7.0 (‘‘Contingency 

Provision’’) of Rule 8051, ‘‘Open Areas’’ 

(2023 amendments) would, if triggered, 

lower the applicability threshold for 

rural open areas from 3.0 acres to 1.0 

acre, and owners and operators of those 

1.0 to 3.0-acre parcels would be newly 

subject to the fugitive dust control 

requirements of Rule 8051.79 This 

measure, if triggered, would affect 

entities such as construction, oilfield, 

truck stop, and equipment and vehicle 

storage owners/operators, as identified 

in the District’s ‘‘Regulation VIII 

Recordkeeping Reporting Forms’’ 

(revised June 1, 2009), as well as other 

residential, industrial, institutional, 

governmental, or commercial lot 

owners/operators. When such entities 

disturb 1,000 or more square feet of 

surface area within a 1.0 to 3.0-acre 

parcel, they would be required to apply 

fugitive dust control measures, 

consistent with the control requirements 

of section 5.0 of Rule 8051. Moreover, 

while the emission reductions from the 

Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure 

are small on a regional basis, they will 

be more meaningful for residents and 

workers in the immediate vicinities of 

the open areas to which Rule 8051 

would apply if and when the 

contingency measure is triggered. 

With respect to agricultural 

operations in the San Joaquin Valley 

and FPMPs, fugitive dust control 

requirements are governed by Rule 

8081, ‘‘Agricultural Sources,’’ which 

covers off-field sources like unpaved 

roads, unpaved vehicle and equipment 

traffic areas, and bulk materials.80

Under section 7.0 of Rule 8081, an 

agricultural operator may implement an 

FPMP for unpaved roads and unpaved 

vehicle/equipment traffic areas as a 

compliance alternative to the control 

requirements in sections 5.2.2, 5.3.1, 

and 5.3.2 of the rule. An FPMP must 

achieve 50% control efficiency for 

fugitive dust (PM10) and go through a 

review and approval process prior to 

being implemented. It must be 

implemented on all days that vehicle 

traffic exceeds the applicable vehicle 

trip thresholds in sections 5.2.2, 5.3.1, 

and 5.3.2. Under section 7.4 of Rule 

8081, failure to comply with an 

approved FPMP is deemed a violation of 

the rule. 

By comparison, sections 5.2.2, 5.3.1, 

and 5.3.2 require that visible dust 

emissions (VDE) be limited to a 20% 

opacity standard and comply with 

requirements for stabilization of 

unpaved roads 81 by application of at 

least one of a discrete set of control 

techniques (e.g., watering, uniform layer 

of washed gravel, chemical/organic dust 

stabilizers/suppressants). Section 5.2.2 

applies to unpaved roads based on 

vehicle daily trips; sections 5.3.1 and 

5.3.2 apply to unpaved vehicle/ 

equipment traffic areas with thresholds 

based on annual and daily vehicle trips, 

respectively. 

If, as the commenters suggest, all 

agricultural operations were required, 

following a contingency measure 

triggering event, to implement an FPMP, 

it is unclear whether such contingency 

measure would achieve emission 

reductions that are surplus to those that 

are being achieved under the existing 

rule. For agricultural operations already 

implementing an FPMP, such 

contingency measure would result in no 

change in emission reductions. For 

agricultural operations implementing 

controls under section 5.2.2, 5.3.1, and 

5.3.2 of Rule 8081 (i.e., not 

implementing an FPMP), it is unclear 

whether an FPMP would achieve more 

emission reductions than the standard 

control provisions (limit VDE to 20% 

opacity). Consistent with our final rule 

approving the 2003 San Joaquin Valley 

attainment plan for the 1987 PM10

NAAQS into the California SIP,82 we 

believe that the FPMP’s 50% control 

efficiency requirement is equivalent to 

the minimum control efficiency 

expected from compliance with surface 

stabilization requirements in the rule 

that otherwise apply. 

Furthermore, within the SJV PM2.5

Contingency Measure SIP, the District 

states that it evaluated potential 

additional controls (including those 

implemented by other jurisdictions) 

within the application of Regulation 

VIII, ‘‘Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions,’’ and 

that the existing fugitive dust controls 

(including those under Rule 8081) meet 

or exceed the requirements for RACM, 

BACM, and MSM, and did not identify 

any further potential contingency 

measure, with the exception of the 

potential measure in Rule 8051 (i.e., the 

measure ultimately adopted as the Rural 

Open Areas Contingency Measure).83 In 

the EPA’s review of potential control 

measures (including those implemented 

by other jurisdictions), we similarly did 

not identify additional measures for 

unpaved roads that would be suitable as 

contingency measures.84 Therefore, we 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80762 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

85 Valley EJ Organizations Comment Letter, pp. 4– 

6. See also, 86 FR 7619 (February 1, 2021) 

(Executive Order 14008) and 88 FR 25251 (April 26, 

2023) (Executive Order 14096). 

86 88 FR 87988, 88009–88011. In section VI of our 

proposed rule, we discuss environmental justice 

considerations in the context of Executive Order 

12898 (‘‘Federal Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’) rather than by reference to Executive 

Orders 14008 or 14096. Executive Order 12898 

directs federal agencies ‘‘to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of their actions on 

minority and low-income populations, to the 

greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.’’ 

Executive Order 14008 directs federal agencies to 

take certain actions directed toward ‘‘disadvantaged 

communities’’ that are described as ‘‘historically 

marginalized and overburdened.’’ Executive Order 

14096 builds upon and supplements Executive 

Orders 12898 and 14008. All three Executive Orders 

direct federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionate environmental effects, even while 

the particular directives and protected classes vary 

among the three orders. 

87 88 FR 87988, 88003–88005. 

88 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994). 

89See letter dated October 22, 2021, from 

environmental organizations to Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator, EPA, Subject: ‘‘Meeting Request to 

Discuss PM–2.5 Crisis in the San Joaquin Valley,’’ 

and letter dated May 18, 2022, from environmental 

organizations to Michael S. Regan, Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Subject: 

‘‘Meeting Request to Discuss PM–2.5 Crisis in the 

San Joaquin Valley’’ (referred to in the EPA’s 

Reasoned Justification TSD as the ‘‘EarthJustice 

Letters’’). 

90EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, p. 6 (within 

section II (‘‘Control Measure Identification and 

Evaluation Methodology’’)), pp. 13–17 (large 

boilers, steam generators, and process heaters), 29 

(non-road, reciprocal internal combustion engines), 

pp. 58–59 (flares), pp. 73–76 (glass and related 

products), 80–84 (residential fuel combustion), p. 

85 (fugitive dust controls), pp. 129–131 (managed 

burning and disposal), pp. 134–136 (commercial 

cooking), p. 147 (new source review), pp. 149–151 

(indirect source review), and pp. 151–152 (soil 

NOX). We also noted that we did not review the 

environmental organizations’ recommendations for 

primarily VOC-related controls, as the EPA has 

approved the State’s demonstrations that VOCs are 

not significant precursors for 1997 annual, 2006 24- 

hour, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley. See, e.g., p. 53 (petroleum 

production and marketing), and p. 88 (confined 

animal facilities). 

disagree with the commenters that 

enforcing FPMPs on all agricultural 

operations would qualify as a 

contingency measure. Nonetheless, we 

recommend that the District continue to 

explore potential contingency measures 

for dust emissions from agricultural 

sources, whether within the construct of 

the FPMP framework in Rule 8081 or 

more broadly, e.g., within the construct 

of other rules such as Rule 4550, 

‘‘Conservation Management Practices.’’ 

Comment 9: The Valley EJ 

Organizations state that the EPA’s 

proposed approval of the State’s 

contingency measures ignores 

Presidential orders that direct the EPA 

and other federal agencies to prioritize 

environmental justice, including 

Executive Order 14008, ‘‘Tackling the 

Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad’’ 

(January 27, 2021) and Executive Order 

14096, ‘‘Revitalizing our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All’’ (April 21, 2023).85 They further 

argue that the EPA exacerbates the 

‘‘environmental justice crisis’’ by 

denying the residents of the San Joaquin 

Valley meaningful pollution reductions. 

To convey the magnitude of this 

concern, the commenters cite to 

American Lung Association rankings of 

counties for PM2.5 and ozone pollution 

(where many San Joaquin Valley 

counties rank among the worst in the 

nation) and the EPA’s review of 

environmental justice indices (where 

many San Joaquin Valley counties 

exceed the 90th percentile) and describe 

the sequence of failures to attain the 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

dates in San Joaquin Valley, as well as 

recent air quality design values for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that portend 

the same. 

In addition, CVAQ argues that the 

EPA’s proposed approval goes against 

the Biden Administration’s 

environmental justice priorities by 

‘‘refusing to hold the region’s largest 

polluters accountable, discounting 

community priorities and continuing 

racist polluting practices.’’ They state 

that EPA is only looking at 

technological feasibility and costs to 

industry and is not analyzing social and 

health impacts in determining the cost 

of not taking action. 

Response to Comment 9: We agree 

that the San Joaquin Valley has many 

communities with EJ concerns that are 

disproportionately impacted by PM2.5

and other kinds of air pollution. 

However, we disagree that the EPA’s 

proposed approval ignores Presidential 

orders to prioritize environmental 

justice. First, the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure and the 

Rural Open Area Contingency Measure, 

as well as the Smog Check Contingency 

Measure, would, following a triggering 

event, reduce emissions from residential 

wood burning, rural open areas, and 

light-duty vehicles across the San 

Joaquin Valley, including minority and 

low-income populations, as described in 

section VI (‘‘Environmental Justice 

Considerations’’) of our proposed rule.86

While not a comprehensive solution 

to address the disproportionately high 

PM2.5 concentrations to which these 

populations are exposed, the three 

contingency measures would achieve 

more than OYW of emission reductions 

for direct PM2.5 and a portion of the 

OYW of emission reductions for NOX, as 

described in our proposed rule 87 and 

updated in section I.B of this document. 

Therefore, our proposed approval of 

these measures is directionally 

consistent with Executive Orders 14008 

and 14096, as well as Executive Order 

12898, ‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations’’ (February 11, 

1994).88

To the extent that the commenters 

disagree with the EPA’s Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance or our 

application thereof to the facts and 

circumstances of the San Joaquin 

Valley, we maintain that the CARB and 

the District’s 2023 SIP Submissions 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 and are 

approving the submissions on that basis. 

The EPA carefully reviewed the 

extensive recommendations put forward 

by environmental, public health, and 

community organizations regarding 

additional potential control measures on 

stationary and area sources in the San 

Joaquin Valley 89 and documented our 

analyses thereof in the EPA’s Reasoned 

Justification TSD.90 We relied heavily 

on that TSD in our evaluation of the 

CARB and the District’s 2023 SIP 

Submissions and, where our 

conclusions differed from CARB or the 

District’s conclusions with respect to 

the basis of a potential additional 

control measure not meeting the 

contingency measure requirements, we 

explained those differences, as noted in 

the latter part of Response to Comment 

4 of this document. Nevertheless, those 

control measure recommendations 

retain their value for consideration as 

CARB and the District develop, and the 

EPA reviews, further SIPs for the San 

Joaquin Valley, even while we conclude 

that they are not required to meet the 

contingency measure requirements for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin 

Valley at this time. 

Regarding CVAQ’s comments 

regarding technological feasibility and 

costs to industry versus social and 

health impacts, we agree that the State, 

in its 2023 SIP Submissions, and the 

EPA, in our review thereof, considered 

the technological feasibility of potential 

control measures and reviewed 

available information regarding the 

economic feasibility of potential control 

measures (i.e., which captures costs to 

industry). However, we did not assess 

the public health and social costs of not 

requiring potential control measures 

during our review of the State’s 2023 

SIP Submissions because such an 

assessment is not required for the 

contingency measure requirements of 

the CAA, nor the related control 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80763 

91Nevertheless, beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking, the public may be interested in the 

EPA’s estimates of the monetized benefit per ton of 

reducing PM2.5 and ozone precursor emissions for 

certain emission sectors; available at https://

www.epa.gov/benmap/sector-based-pm25-benefitton-estimates. 

92 Valley EJ Organizations Comment Letter, p. 2. 

93 Valley EJ Organizations Comment Letter, p. 11. 

94 Valley EJ Organizations Comment Letter, 

Exhibits 4 through 12. 

95 Valley EJ Organizations Comment Letter, pp. 8– 

11. 

96See, for example, EPA Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, ‘‘Implementing Clean Air Act 

Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control 

Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to 

Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth in 

Vehicle Miles Travelled,’’ EPA–420–B–12–053, 

August 2012 (revised guidance in light of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Association of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at 596–597 

(9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 

27, 2012). 

97 Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, 

p. 2. 

98The Sierra Club v. EPA decision adopted the 

rationale of an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals in Bahr v. EPA that invalidated 

already-implemented measures as contingency 

measures for the purposes of CAA section 172(c)(9). 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827–28 (D.C. Cir. 

2021) and Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 

2016). 

measure requirements (e.g., RACM/ 

RACT, BACM/BACT, or MSM) upon 

which contingency measures build.91

In addition, while the EPA may in 

certain circumstances have discretion to 

consider environmental justice in 

implementing the requirements of the 

Act, Executive Orders 12898, 14008, 

and 14096 do not provide any 

independent authority for action. The 

EPA has determined that this action 

satisfies the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9) for the 1997 annual, 

2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Under the CAA, the EPA is required to 

approve a SIP submission that meets the 

requirements of the CAA and applicable 

federal regulations. 

Although these Executive Orders do 

not provide us with an independent 

basis to disapprove CARB and the 

District’s SIP submission, we conducted 

an environmental justice analysis to 

provide additional context and 

information about this rulemaking to the 

public, as described in section III of this 

document and section VI of our 

proposed rule. Overall, we expect that 

this action and the codification of the 

Residential Wood Burning Contingency 

Measure and the Rural Open Areas 

Contingency Measure, as well as the 

codification of the Smog Check 

Contingency Measure in our separate 

final action, will contribute to reduced 

negative environmental and health 

impacts on all populations in the San 

Joaquin Valley, including communities 

with EJ concerns. For these reasons, this 

action is not expected to have a 

disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental effect 

on a particular group of people. The 

EPA remains committed to working 

with CARB and the District to ensure 

that the PM2.5 attainment requirements 

for this area satisfy applicable CAA 

requirements and thereby protect all 

populations in the area, including 

communities with EJ concerns, from 

disproportionately high or adverse air 

pollution impacts. 

Comment 10: The Valley EJ 

Organizations allege that, following the 

2021 Ninth Circuit Court decision in 

AIR v. EPA, the EPA began colluding 

with CARB and California air districts to 

weaken the contingency measure 

requirement. The Valley EJ 

Organizations further state that, during 

meetings of a workgroup called the 

‘‘Padilla Contingency Measures 

Subgroup,’’ the EPA committed to revise 

its long-standing interpretation of the 

contingency measure requirements, 

including specific elements that would 

relax emission reduction requirements 

and contend that the EPA’s commitment 

yielded the Draft Revised Contingency 

Measure Guidance.92 The commenters 

also contend that the EPA now 

proposes, as it allegedly agreed to 

during the Padilla Contingency 

Measures subgroup proceedings, to 

‘‘eviscerate the amount of contingency 

measure emission reductions’’ and that 

the ‘‘EPA has predetermined the 

outcome of these proposed rulemakings 

in an agreement with CARB and the air 

districts during the Padilla Contingency 

Measures Subgroup proceedings,’’ 

thereby violating the procedural due 

process clause of the Fifth Amendment 

to the U.S. Constitution, CAA section 

307, the Administrative Procedure Act, 

and Executive Orders 14008 and 

14096.93

The Valley EJ Organizations include 

several documents obtained from the 

EPA via a Freedom of Information Act 

request to support their allegation of 

collusion.94 These include, among other 

things, documents relating to EPA 

engagement in 2021–2023 with the 

California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association (CAPCOA), the ‘‘Padilla 

Contingency Measures Subgroup,’’ a 

letter from South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, discussions with 

California air districts and CARB senior 

staff, and an email from EPA Region IX 

to SJVUAPCD. The commenters state 

that these documents indicate that the 

EPA worked closely with California air 

agencies to fashion an agreement to 

weaken the contingency measure 

requirement and that the EPA shared its 

revised guidance with the California 

agencies several months before releasing 

the revised guidance to the general 

public without regard for the public 

health consequences from weakening 

the contingency measure requirement.95

Response to Comment 10: We 

disagree that the EPA colluded with 

California air agencies to weaken the 

contingency measure requirement 

following the 2021 AIR v. EPA decision 

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In this context, collusion refers to a 

secret agreement for an illegal purpose. 

The process we followed to reconsider 

and revise preexisting contingency 

measure guidance was not secret, nor 

was our agreement to reconsider and 

revise the guidance made for an illegal 

purpose. 

The Clean Air Act is referred to as a 

model of cooperative federalism. Under 

the CAA, the EPA is responsible for 

establishing the NAAQS, and the states 

are responsible for developing SIPs and 

SIP revisions to provide for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the NAAQS. In turn, the 

EPA is responsible for promulgating 

regulations establishing SIP 

requirements and for providing 

guidance to the states in developing 

SIPs and SIP revisions to meet the 

various requirements under the CAA 

and our implementing regulations. 

In that capacity, it is appropriate for 

the EPA to reconsider previously-issued 

guidance in the wake of court decisions 

that bear on EPA actions on SIPs that 

relied on that guidance.96 In this 

instance, as discussed in the Draft 

Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance, we issued the draft revised 

guidance document because recent 

court decisions had invalidated key 

aspects of EPA’s historical approach to 

implementing the contingency measure 

requirement, and these court decisions 

had the effect of prohibiting an 

approach that many air agencies have 

historically used to meet the 

contingency measure requirement.97

The EPA developed the Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance based 

on the recommendations of an ad hoc 

internal working group, referred to as 

the Contingency Measure Task Force, 

that the EPA assembled soon after the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision 

in Sierra Club v. EPA.98 The 

Contingency Measure Task Force was 

comprised of EPA program staff and 

attorneys from both the EPA regions and 

headquarters. During the process of 

developing options for EPA 

management consideration and 

preparing the Draft Revised Contingency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80764 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

99The Padilla Contingency Measures Subgroup 

was one of several such ad hoc groups assembled 

in response to an inquiry from U.S. Senator Padilla. 

See the letter dated December 3, 2021, from Joseph 

Goffman, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator 

to U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, responding to letter 

dated October 19, 2021, from U.S. Senator Alex 

Padilla to Michael Regan, Administrator, EPA. 

100 88 FR 17571. 

101 88 FR 87988. 

102EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent 

dataset and approach for combining environmental 

and demographic indicators. EJSCREEN is available 

at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen. The 

EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and 

demographic indicators representing each of the 

eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley. These 

indicators are included in EJSCREEN reports that 

are available in the rulemaking docket for this 

action. EPA Region IX, ‘‘EJSCREEN Analysis for the 

Eight Counties of the San Joaquin Valley 

Nonattainment Area,’’ August 2022. 

Measure Guidance, California air 

agencies made their views known to the 

EPA, but those agencies played no part 

in the drafting or review of the 

recommendations made by the 

Contingency Measure Task Force to EPA 

management or the substance of the 

Draft Revised Contingency Measure 

Guidance itself. 

Also in the spirit of cooperative 

federalism, the EPA routinely 

communicates with state and local air 

agencies responsible for SIPs and SIP 

revisions regarding compliance with SIP 

requirements. Again, the states are 

responsible for adoption and 

submission of SIPs and SIP revisions 

and there are consequences for failure to 

meet SIP submission deadlines. 

In this instance, the EPA engaged 

with state and local air agencies to hear 

their concerns over meeting the 

contingency measure SIP requirements 

and to provide a description of the types 

of revisions to the contingency measure 

guidance that EPA staff were developing 

for consideration by EPA management. 

The impetus for heightened interest on 

the part of state and local air agencies 

was the need to meet near-term 

deadlines for submission of SIP 

revisions addressing the contingency 

measure SIP requirements for multiple 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Documents 

cited by the commenter as evidence of 

collusion simply reveal that the EPA 

was responsive to state and local agency 

requests for insight as to what the 

contingency measure guidance revisions 

might entail if and when approved by 

EPA management. Thus the air agencies 

that developed SIP revisions in reliance 

on the descriptions by EPA staff of notyet-approved revisions to the 

contingency measure guidance were 

taking a risk that the guidance, once 

made publicly available, would differ in 

material ways from what EPA staff had 

described. 

With respect to the commitments that 

the EPA made in connection with the 

Padilla Contingency Measures 

Subgroup,99 the EPA did not commit to 

making any specific revisions to the 

contingency measure guidance or to 

making any revisions to the guidance 

that are inconsistent with the CAA or 

case law. Rather, the Agency committed 

‘‘to explore interpretations and 

approaches that are consistent with the 

court decisions’’ and, among other 

things, ‘‘to revisit’’ the general bases for 

calculating the amount of emission 

reductions that contingency measures 

should provide, but as noted previously, 

the EPA did not commit to any 

particular outcome. The Contingency 

Measure Task Force followed through 

on these commitments through meetings 

and review of draft documents that were 

internal to the EPA and eventual 

publication of notice in the Federal 

Register of the availability of the Draft 

Revised Contingency Measure Guidance 

for public review and comment. We 

believe the revised draft guidance 

provides an approach that state and 

local air agencies may use to meet the 

contingency measure SIP requirements 

under the CAA. 

The EPA issued the Draft Revised 

Contingency Measure Guidance on 

March 17, 2023, and sought public 

comment on section 3 (‘‘Showing that 

the CMs Achieve Sufficient 

Reductions’’), section 4 (‘‘Reasoned 

Justification for Less Than OYW of 

Progress’’), and section 5 (‘‘Guidance on 

Timing of Reductions from CMs’’) of the 

draft guidance over a 30-day period 

ending April 24, 2023.100 We applied 

the underlying concepts of the draft 

guidance in our evaluation of the SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP, 

described as much in our proposed rule, 

and provided a 30-day comment period 

ending January 9, 2024, consistent with 

the public notice requirements of the 

CAA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act.101

For this action, we evaluated the two 

individual District contingency 

measures, the Residential Wood 

Burning Contingency Measure and the 

Rural Open Areas Contingency Measure, 

to determine whether they met the 

requirements for such measures under 

the CAA and the EPA’s regulations. We 

also considered the sum of the emission 

reductions from the two individual 

District contingency measures plus 

CARB’s Smog Check Contingency 

Measure relative to the recommended 

amount we have indicated contingency 

measures should achieve. Because the 

measures, considered together, would 

not achieve the recommended amount 

of emission reductions for NOX, CARB 

and the District submitted infeasibility 

demonstrations documenting the 

unavailability of additional feasible 

contingency measures for that PM2.5

precursor. 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

infeasibility demonstrations and in our 

proposed rule provided the rationale for 

our conclusion that the individual 

District contingency measures met the 

applicable requirements for such 

measures and that CARB and the 

District had provided a reasoned 

justification, through the infeasibility 

demonstrations, for not adopting 

contingency measures sufficient to 

achieve the recommended amount of 

emission reductions for NOX. In this 

action, we are finalizing our approval of 

the SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP 

for the reasons given in the proposed 

rule, as clarified and supplemented in 

responses to comments. While the 

Valley EJ Organizations object to the 

consideration of feasibility in 

connection with the contingency 

measure SIP requirement, the 

commenters have raised no specific 

objection our evaluation of the 

infeasibility demonstrations from CARB 

and the District upon which our final 

approval rests. 

In summary, in our proposed rule on 

the State’s contingency measure SIP 

submissions for the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

San Joaquin Valley, as well as our Draft 

Revised Contingency Measures 

Guidance, we articulated a reasoned 

justification for the change in EPA 

policy on the contingency measure 

requirements and respond in this 

document to comments opposing those 

policy changes, and we explained how 

we were reviewing the 2023 SIP 

Submissions in light of the new 

guidance. The EPA believes that such 

actions satisfy the applicable 

requirements for public process under 

the CAA and Administrative Procedure 

Act, as well as our responsibilities to 

engage state and local air agencies on 

CAA requirements and the development 

of SIP revisions in the wake of 

applicable court decisions. 

III. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

As described in detail in our proposal, 

the EPA reviewed environmental and 

demographic data for the San Joaquin 

Valley using the EPA’s EJ screening and 

mapping tool (‘‘EJSCREEN’’) and 

compared the data to the corresponding 

data for the United States as a whole, 

and to California as a whole.102 The 

results of the analysis are provided for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80765 

103 86 FR 67343. 

104 86 FR 67329. 

105 86 FR 67329, 67341 and 86 FR 67343, 67346– 

67347. We note that, concurrent with our proposed 

rules to approve the State’s 2023 SIP submissions, 

the EPA issued an interim final determination that 

stayed offset sanctions and deferred highway 

sanctions. 88 FR 87934 (December 20, 2023). 

106 In addition, our CAA section 110(c) FIP 

obligations arising from the disapprovals of the 

contingency measure elements will be permanently 

terminated. 

107See our December 20, 2023 proposed rule at 

88 FR 87991 for a discussion of the finding of 

failure to submit and related FIP obligation. 

informational and transparency 

purposes. 

This final action approves the State’s 

contingency measure SIP submissions 

for the 1997 annual, 2006 24-hour, and 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley. Information on these 

PM2.5 NAAQS and their relationship to 

health impacts can be found at 62 FR 

38652 (July 18, 1997), 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006), and 78 FR 3086 

(January 15, 2013), respectively. We 

expect that this action and resulting 

emission reductions will generally be 

neutral or contribute to reduced 

environmental and health impacts on all 

populations in the San Joaquin Valley, 

including communities with EJ 

concerns. At a minimum, this action 

would not worsen existing air quality 

and is expected to help ensure the area 

is meeting requirements to attain and/or 

maintain air quality standards. Further, 

there is no information in the record 

indicating that this action is expected to 

have disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on a particular group of people. 

IV. EPA Action 

For the reasons described in our 

proposed rule and in responses to 

comments and under CAA section 

110(k)(3), the EPA is taking final action 

to approve SIP revisions submitted by 

CARB on June 8, 2023, and October 16, 

2023, for the San Joaquin Valley to 

address the contingency measure SIP 

requirements for San Joaquin Valley for 

the 1997 annual, 2006 24-hour, and 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The SIP submissions include the 

contingency measure plan element for 

San Joaquin Valley for the relevant 

PM2.5 NAAQS (referred to herein as the 

‘‘SJV PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP’’) 

and two specific contingency measures, 

referred to herein as the Residential 

Wood Burning Contingency Measure 

and the Rural Open Areas Contingency 

Measure. We are approving the SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP as 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1014 for San Joaquin Valley for the 

applicable PM2.5 NAAQS based on our 

approval of these two contingency 

measures, the emission reductions from 

the two contingency measures and the 

Smog Check Contingency Measure, and 

our review of the State’s infeasibility 

demonstrations provided in the SJV 

PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP. 

The Residential Wood Burning 

Contingency Measure and the Rural 

Open Areas Contingency Measure are 

included in amendments to SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces 

and Wood Burning Heaters’’) and Rule 

8051 (‘‘Open Areas’’), respectively. We 

are taking final action to approve the 

two specific contingency measures 

because they meet the requirements 

under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 

CFR 51.1014 for such measures. 

As discussed in Section I.B of the 

proposed rule, on November 26, 2021, 

the EPA disapproved the contingency 

measure SIP elements submitted for the 

2006 24-hour and 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for San Joaquin Valley.103

These disapprovals were effective on 

December 27, 2021. In a separate action 

published on November 26, 2021, also 

effective December 27, 2021, the EPA 

disapproved the contingency measure 

element for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for San Joaquin Valley.104

In our November 26, 2021 final 

disapprovals, we noted that offset and 

highway sanctions under CAA sections 

179(b)(2) and 179(b)(1), respectively, 

would not apply if California submits, 

and the EPA approves, a SIP submission 

or submissions that correct the 

deficiencies identified in our final 

actions prior to the imposition of 

sanctions.105 Through this final 

approval action, we find that California 

has corrected the deficiencies associated 

with the contingency measure elements 

for the 1997 annual, 2006 24-hour and 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for San 

Joaquin Valley. Thus, upon the effective 

date of this final rule, all sanctions and 

any sanctions clocks associated with the 

disapprovals of the contingency 

measure elements for the 1997 annual, 

2006 24-hour and 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for San Joaquin Valley will be 

permanently terminated.106

Lastly, based on this final action, we 

find that our FIP obligation arising from 

our December 6, 2018 finding of failure 

to submit is terminated, and thus, we 

will not be taking final action on our 

August 8, 2023 proposed PM2.5

contingency measure FIP for San 

Joaquin Valley.107

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 (‘‘Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters’’), 

amended May 18, 2023, which regulates 

emissions from wood burning 

fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and 

outdoor wood burning devices, and 

Rule 8051 (‘‘Open Areas’’), amended 

September 21, 2023, which regulates 

fugitive dust from open areas. The May 

18, 2023 version of Rule 4901 and the 

September 21, 2023 version of Rule 

8051 will replace the previously 

approved versions of these rules, 

respectively, in the California SIP. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents available 

through www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act and 

applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves a state plan and 

related measures as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
80766 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the final rule does not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with EJ 

concerns to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law. The 

EPA defines EJ as ‘‘the fair treatment 

and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national 

origin, or income with respect to the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

CARB and the District did not 

evaluate EJ considerations as part of the 

SIP submissions addressed in this 

action; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA performed an EJ analysis, as 

described in section III of this document 

and section VI of the EPA’s proposed 

rule, entitled ‘‘Environmental Justice 

Considerations.’’ The EPA conducted 

this analysis for the purpose of 

providing additional context and 

information about this rulemaking to the 

public, and the EPA does not rely on 

this analysis as a basis for this final 

action. In addition, the EPA has 

addressed comments on Executive 

Orders relating to EJ in Response to 

Comment 9 of this document. Due to the 

nature of the action being taken here, 

this action is expected to have a neutral 

to positive impact on the air quality of 

the affected area. In addition, there is no 

information in the record upon which 

this decision is based inconsistent with 

the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 3, 

2024. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review, nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and it shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: September 25, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(334)(i)(B)(3), 

(c)(535)(i)(A)(2), (c)(618) and (619) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(334) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(3) Previously approved on February 

17, 2006, in paragraph (c)(334)(i)(B)(2) 

of this section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(619)(i)(A)(1) of this section: Rule 

8051, ‘‘Open Areas,’’ amended on 

August 19, 2004. 

* * * * * 

(535) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Previously approved on July 22, 

2020, in paragraph (c)(535)(i)(A)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(618)(i)(A)(1) of this section: Rule 

4901, ‘‘Wood Burning Fireplaces and 

Wood Burning Heaters,’’ amended on 

June 20, 2019. 

* * * * * 

(618) The following plan revisions 

were submitted electronically on June 8, 

2023, by the Governor’s designee, as an 

attachment to a letter dated June 7, 

2023. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 4901, ‘‘Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,’’ 

amended on May 18, 2023. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(B) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. (A) San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) ‘‘PM2.5 Contingency Measure State 

Implementation Plan Revision (May 18, 

2023),’’ adopted on May 18, 2023, 

excluding Rule 4901, ‘‘Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters.’’ 

(2) [Reserved] 

(B) [Reserved] 

(619) The following plan revision was 

submitted electronically on October 16, 

2023, by the Governor’s designee, as an 

attachment to a letter dated October 13, 

2023. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 8051, ‘‘Open Areas,’’ 

amended on September 21, 2023. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(B) [Reserved] 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

§ 52.237 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.237 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(9), (10) and (11). 

[FR Doc. 2024–22681 Filed 10–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES