[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85119-85135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24706]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0338; FRL-12118-01-R9]


Conditional Approval; Contingency Measure State Implementation 
Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard; San Joaquin Valley, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
conditionally approve a state implementation plan (SIP) submission 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') that addresses the contingency 
measure requirements for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for the San Joaquin Valley ozone 
nonattainment area. The SIP submission, titled the ``Ozone Contingency 
Measure State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour 
Ozone Standards'' (``2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan,'' 
``Contingency Measure Plan,'' or ``Plan'') relies on two ozone 
contingency measures that the EPA has already approved in separate 
rulemakings. The proposed approval is conditional because it also 
relies on commitments by the State air agency and regional air district 
to supplement the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan with 
submission of specific additional contingency measures within one year 
of the EPA's final conditional approval. The EPA is proposing 
conditional approval of the SIP submission because the Agency has 
preliminarily determined that the existing approved contingency 
measures, the commitments to submit additional contingency measures, 
and the justification for not adopting contingency measures that would 
achieve the recommended amount for such measures, meet the applicable 
requirements for such SIP submissions under the CAA and the EPA's 
implementation regulations for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. The proposed conditional approval, if finalized, would add 
the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan to the federally 
enforceable California SIP.

DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before November 25, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0338 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on

[[Page 85120]]

making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 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: Andrew Ledezma, Air Planning Office 
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
(415) 972-3985, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c488a1a0a1bea9a5ea85aaa0b6a1b384a1b4a5eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e527b7a7b64737f305f707a6c7b695e7b6e7f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background for Proposed Action
    A. The 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 
Designation, Classification, and Plans
    B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
    C. Previous EPA Actions Related to Contingency Measures for the 
2008 Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
II. Contingency Measure Requirements, Guidance, and Legal Precedent
    A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    B. Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
III. Summary of SIP Submission and Evaluation for Compliance With 
SIP Revision Procedural Requirements
    A. Summary of SIP Submission
    B. Evaluation for Compliance With SIP Revision Procedural 
Requirements
IV. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Contingency Measure Plan
    A. One Year's Worth of Progress
    B. Emissions Inventory Analysis and Contingency Measures
    C. Adopted Contingency Measures
    D. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures
    E. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis
V. EPA Evaluation
    A. One Year's Worth of Progress
    B. Contingency Measures
    C. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures
    D. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis
    E. Conclusion
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Proposed Action

A. The 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Designation, 
Classification, and Plans

    Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants, 
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, 
including on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and 
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden 
equipment, architectural coatings, and other types of consumer 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State of California refers to reactive organic gases 
(ROG) in some of its ozone-related submissions. The CAA and the 
EPA's regulations refer to VOC, rather than ROG, but both terms 
cover essentially the same set of gases. In this proposed rule, we 
use the federal term (VOC) to refer to this set of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects 
occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults 
with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung 
function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms 
and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA 
has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or 
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The 
EPA has previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979 and 1997.\3\ In 
2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the ozone NAAQS by 
setting the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 parts 
per million (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour period.\4\ Although the EPA 
further tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this 
action relates to the requirements for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.<SUP>5 6</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1979 was 0.12 parts per 
million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 
(February 8, 1979). The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 was 0.08 ppm 
averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
    \4\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \5\ Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is available at 80 FR 
65292 (October 26, 2015).
    \6\ Although the district's submittal included submissions to 
address requirements for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, at this 
time we are taking action on the submittal as it pertains to the 
2008 ozone requirements. The EPA plans to act on the submittal with 
respect to the 2015 ozone requirements at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the 
country as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In 2012, the EPA 
designated the San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 
standards and classified that area as ``Extreme.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption and 
submission to the EPA of California SIP revisions, and it has broad 
authority to establish emissions standards and other requirements for 
mobile sources. Local and regional air pollution control districts in 
California are responsible for the regulation of stationary sources and 
are generally responsible for the development of regional air quality 
plans. In the San Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') is responsible 
for stationary source regulation, and it also develops and adopts air 
quality management plans to address CAA planning requirements 
applicable to that region. Such plans are then submitted to CARB for 
adoption and submittal to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP.
    Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is charged with evaluation of 
each SIP revision submitted by states for compliance with applicable 
CAA requirements and with taking action on each submission. The EPA 
evaluates SIP submissions and takes action to approve or disapprove 
them through notice-and-comment rulemaking published in the Federal 
Register. CAA section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally 
approve a SIP submission based on a commitment of the State to adopt 
specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but no later than one 
year after the date of approval of the SIP submission. Where 
appropriate, the EPA may act on separate portions of a SIP submission 
in separate rulemaking actions.
    Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 
as ``Serious'' or above, such as the San Joaquin Valley area for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS, must include in their SIPs, among other requirements, 
contingency measures consistent with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional controls or measures to 
be implemented in the event the area fails to make reasonable further 
progress (RFP), meet any applicable milestone, or attain the NAAQS by 
the attainment date. Additional information about the requirements for 
contingency measures can be found in section II of this document.

B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

    The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 
standards consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 
Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western portion of Kern County. The

[[Page 85121]]

San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area stretches over 250 miles from 
north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and encompasses over 
23,000 square miles. It is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain 
range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra 
Nevada range to the east.\8\ The population of the San Joaquin Valley 
in 2020 was estimated to be more than 4.4 million people and is 
projected to increase to nearly 5 million people by 2035.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San 
Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
    \9\ The population estimates and projections include all of Kern 
County, not just the portion of Kern County within the San Joaquin 
Valley Air Basin. See Chapter 2 and table 2-1 of the District's 
``2022 Ozone Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Previous EPA Actions Related to Contingency Measures for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley

    In March 2019, the EPA took final action to approve, or 
conditionally approve, certain SIP revisions submitted by CARB to meet 
CAA requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, 
California, ozone nonattainment area.\10\ Specifically, the EPA 
approved the base year emissions inventory, RFP demonstration, and 
motor vehicle emissions budgets, and we conditionally approved the 
contingency measure element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The approval was 
conditional because it relied on a commitment by the District to amend 
the District's Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) to include 
contingency provisions and a commitment by CARB to submit the amended 
District rule to the EPA within a year of final conditional approval of 
the contingency measure element for the San Joaquin Valley.\11\ We 
justified a conditional approval of the contingency measure element, 
even though the contingency measure itself would only achieve a small 
fraction of the recommended amount of emissions reductions for 
contingency measures, on two bases: (1) surplus emissions reductions 
anticipated from already-implemented measures in the milestone years 
and year after the attainment year and (2) a commitment by the State to 
achieve additional emissions reductions by the attainment year in the 
San Joaquin Valley that would reduce the chances for failure to attain 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019).
    \11\ Id. at 11207.
    \12\ 83 FR 61346, at 61357 (November 29, 2018) (proposed 
conditional approval), finalized at 84 FR 11198, at 11205-11206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our final conditional approval of the contingency measure element 
was the subject of a legal challenge and, in a 2021 Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals decision in the Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA 
case, the Court remanded the conditional approval action back to the 
Agency.\13\ In so doing, the Court found that, by taking into account 
the emissions reductions from already-implemented measures to find that 
the contingency measure would suffice to meet the applicable 
requirement, the EPA was circumventing the Court's 2016 holding in Bahr 
v. EPA.\14\ The Court also held that the EPA could not avoid the need 
for robust contingency measures by assuming that they would not be 
needed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937 
(9th Cir. 2021).
    \14\ Id., at 946. The reference to ``Bahr v. EPA'' is to Bahr v. 
EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016). Under the Bahr 
holding, contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9) must be 
designed so as to be implemented prospectively; already-implemented 
control measures may not serve as contingency measures even if they 
provide emissions reductions beyond those needed for any other CAA 
purpose.
    \15\ Id. at 947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2022, in light of the Association of Irritated Residents 
v. EPA decision, the EPA took final action to withdraw our previous 
conditional approval and to partially disapprove the contingency 
measure element submitted to address the contingency measure 
requirements for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\16\ 
We did so because we found that, if we did not take into account the 
likelihood the District would need contingency measures or surplus 
emissions reductions from already implemented measures, then the one 
contingency measure that was included in the contingency measure 
element would have to shoulder the entire burden of achieving the 
recommended amount for contingency measures (if triggered). Moreover, 
that one contingency measure would have only achieved a small fraction 
of the recommended amount of emissions reductions for contingency 
measures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 87 FR 59688 (October 3, 2022).
    \17\ Id, at 59690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31, the EPA's 
partial disapproval of the contingency measure element triggered 
sanctions clocks. More specifically, as explained in our final partial 
disapproval action, under 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction in CAA 
section 179(b)(2) would be imposed 18 months after the effective date 
of the partial disapproval action (the disapproval took effect November 
2, 2022), and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) 
would be imposed six months after the offset sanction was imposed, 
unless the EPA determined that a subsequent SIP submission corrects the 
identified deficiencies before the applicable deadline.\18\ In 
addition, the EPA's partial disapproval of the contingency measure SIP 
submissions triggered an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a federal 
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the November 2, 2022 
effective date, pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), unless we approved a 
subsequent SIP submission that corrects the plan deficiencies before 
the applicable deadline.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2024, in response to our final partial disapproval, the 
State of California adopted and submitted the 2024 SJV Ozone 
Contingency Measure Plan, which is the subject of this proposed action, 
to correct the deficiencies that the EPA identified in the previous 
contingency measure SIP submissions that were the basis for the EPA's 
October 2022 disapproval. We describe the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan in more detail in sections III and IV of this document and 
present our evaluation of the SIP submission in section V of this 
document. Based on this proposed conditional approval, in the Rules and 
Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are 
issuing an interim final determination to stay the application of the 
offset sanction and to defer the application of the highway sanction 
that were triggered by the EPA's October 2022 partial disapproval.
    In addition to the submission of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan, the District has adopted, and CARB has submitted, 
revisions to the District's architectural coatings rule (i.e., District 
Rule 4601) to include a contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
(``Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure''). The EPA approved the 
amended architectural coatings rule in December 2022.\20\ The 
Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure will, if triggered, remove 
the rule's small container exemption (i.e., one liter or less) for 
certain types of coatings.\21\ More recently, CARB

[[Page 85122]]

adopted and submitted a contingency measure for the vehicle inspection 
and maintenance (``Smog Check'') program. As adopted, the ``Smog Check 
Contingency Measure'' would narrow the Smog Check inspection exemption 
for newer model year vehicles in certain California nonattainment areas 
upon a triggering event for certain NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley.\22\ The EPA recently approved the 
Smog Check Contingency Measure as a revision to the California SIP.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 87 FR 78544 (December 22, 2022).
    \21\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4601, section 4.3.
    \22\ 89 FR 56222 (July 9, 2024).
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our actions approving the Architectural Coatings Contingency 
Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure, we indicated that we 
were approving the contingency measures as individual contingency 
measures but that we were not determining in those actions whether the 
State had met the contingency measure SIP requirements under CAA 
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the areas to which the contingency 
measures apply.\24\ Instead, we indicated that we would take into 
account the emissions reductions associated with the Architectural 
Coatings Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
when we take action on the contingency measure element submitted by the 
State to demonstrate compliance with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9) for a given area. As expected, we are taking into account the 
emissions reductions associated with the Architectural Coatings 
Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure in this 
proposed action on the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, which 
was submitted to satisfy the contingency measure SIP requirements under 
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 
San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 87 FR 57161, at 57164 (September 19, 2022) (proposed 
approval of Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure), finalized 
at 87 FR 78544; and 89 FR 56222, at 56229-56230 (July 9, 2024) 
(final approval of Smog Check Contingency Measure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Contingency Measure Requirements, Guidance, and Legal Precedent

    The EPA first provided its views on the CAA's requirements for 
ozone plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following guidance 
documents: (1) ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' 
(``General Preamble''); \25\ and (2) ``State Implementation Plans; 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990; Supplemental.'' \26\ More recently, in the 
Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements, ``2008 Ozone SIP 
Requirements Rule (SRR),'' the EPA provided further interpretive 
guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to areas 
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), referred to as the ``General 
Preamble.''
    \26\ 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    \27\ 80 FR 12264, 12285-12286 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states required to make an attainment 
plan SIP submission must include contingency measures to be implemented 
if the area fails to meet RFP (``RFP contingency measures'') or to 
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (``attainment 
contingency measures''). For ozone nonattainment areas classified 
Serious or above, CAA section 182(c)(9) further specifies that states 
must include contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails 
to meet any applicable milestone. An EPA determination that the state 
failed to meet an RFP milestone or to attain the NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date is referred to as a ``triggering event'' 
because it triggers the requirement to implement the contingency 
measures.
    Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control 
measures that are ready to be implemented upon a triggering event.\28\ 
In general, the EPA expects all actions needed to effect full 
implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after the EPA 
notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP or to attain.\29\ Moreover, 
we generally expect the additional emissions reductions from the 
contingency measures to be achieved within a year of the triggering 
event.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 80 FR 12264, 12285.
    \29\ General Preamble 13512, 13543-13544.
    \30\ General Preamble, 13511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in 
reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP 
requirement or to correct the failure to attain. Neither the CAA nor 
the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of 
emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures must 
achieve, but the EPA has traditionally recommended that contingency 
measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent to 
approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP in the 
nonattainment area.\31\ As part of the contingency measure SIP 
submission, the EPA expects states to explain the amount of anticipated 
emissions reductions that the contingency measures will achieve. In the 
``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'') \32\ (discussed in section I.B below), 
the EPA recommends that, in the event that a state is unable to 
identify and adopt contingency measures that will provide for 
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, the state 
should provide a reasoned justification why the smaller amount of 
emissions reductions is appropriate.<SUP>33 34</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 80 FR 12264, 12285. See also General Preamble, 13511.
    \32\ EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``DRAFT: 
Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions 
that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements 
for Ozone and Particulate Matter,'' Draft--3/17/2023--Public Review 
Version. The Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance is available 
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-qualityimplementation-plans/draft-contingency-measuresguidance.
    \33\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, p. 29.
    \34\ We note, the reasoned justification process outlined in the 
Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance is intended, first and 
foremost, as a means of identifying feasible measures rather than a 
justification for achieving less than the recommended emissions 
reductions needed for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To satisfy the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), the contingency measures adopted as part of a 
2008 ozone NAAQS attainment plan must consist of control measures for 
the area that are not otherwise required to meet other attainment plan 
requirements (e.g., to meet reasonably available control measure 
(RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements). By 
definition, contingency measures are measures that are over and above 
what a state must adopt and impose to provide for RFP and to provide 
for attainment by the applicable attainment date.
    In addition, to comply with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), 
contingency measures must be both conditional and prospective, i.e., 
measures that go into effect and achieve emission reductions in the 
event of a future triggering event, but not before the triggering 
event. In the 2016 Bahr v.

[[Page 85123]]

EPA \35\ decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that CAA 
section 172(c)(9) does not allow the EPA to approve already-implemented 
control measures as contingency measures. In other words, a state must 
develop, adopt, and submit one or more contingency measures to be 
implemented upon a triggering event, regardless of the extent to which 
already-implemented measures would achieve surplus emission reductions 
beyond those necessary to meet other applicable CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016). See 
also Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827-28 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in section I.C of this document, the recent AIR decision 
held that, under the EPA's current guidance, the surplus emissions 
reductions from already-implemented measures could not be relied upon 
to justify the approval of a contingency measure that would achieve far 
less than one year's worth of RFP as sufficient to meet the contingency 
measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 
nonattainment area.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, 
946-47 (9th Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance

    In March 2023, the EPA published a notice of availability 
announcing new draft guidance (i.e., the Draft Revised Contingency 
Measure Guidance) addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements 
of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and provided the opportunity 
for public comment.\37\ The 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 
and the timing for when the emissions 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 contingency 
measures to achieve the recommended amount of reductions, which builds 
on existing guidance that the state provide a reasoned justification 
for why the smaller amount of emissions reductions from contingency 
measures is appropriate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 88 FR 17571 (March 23, 2023).
    \38\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016), at 58067/3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, the 
recommended level of emissions reductions that contingency measures 
should achieve is one year's worth of ``progress'' as opposed to one 
year's worth of RFP (the previous recommended amount of 
reductions).\39\ One year's worth of ``progress'' is calculated by 
determining the average annual reductions between the base year 
emissions inventory and the projected attainment year emissions 
inventory, determining what percentage of the base year emissions 
inventory this amount represents, and then applying that percentage to 
the projected attainment year emissions inventory to determine the 
amount of reductions needed to ensure ongoing progress if contingency 
measures are triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, p. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the time period within which reductions from 
contingency measures should occur, the EPA previously recommended that 
contingency measures take effect within 60 days of being triggered and 
that the resulting emission reductions generally occur within one year 
of the triggering event. Under the Draft Revised Contingency Measure 
Guidance, in instances where there are insufficient contingency 
measures available to achieve the recommended amount of emissions 
reductions within one year of the triggering event, the EPA recommends 
that contingency measures that provide reductions within up to two 
years of the triggering event could be appropriate to consider toward 
achieving the recommended amount of emissions reductions. The Draft 
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance does not alter the 60-day 
recommendation for the contingency measures to take initial effect.
    If, after adequately evaluating additional control measures, the 
state is unable to identify contingency measures that would provide 
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, the Draft 
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance recommends that the state should 
provide a reasoned justification (referred to herein as an 
``infeasibility demonstration''). This reasoned justification should 
explain and document the state's evaluation of all existing and 
potential control measures relevant to the appropriate source 
categories and pollutants in the nonattainment area and the state's 
conclusions regarding whether such measures are feasible.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, CAA 
section 172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9) do not explicitly provide for 
consideration of whether specific measures are feasible. However, the 
Agency does not read these statutory provisions to require states to 
adopt contingency measures that are not feasible.\41\ The statutory 
provisions applicable to other nonattainment area plan control measure 
requirements, including RACM/RACT (for ozone and PM), best available 
control measure (BACM)/best available control technology (BACT) (for 
PM), and most stringent measures (MSM) (for PM), allow air agencies to 
exclude certain control measures that are deemed unreasonable or 
infeasible (depending on the requirement). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of SIP Submission and Evaluation for Compliance With SIP 
Revision Procedural Requirements

A. Summary of SIP Submission

    On April 29, 2024, CARB submitted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan as a revision to the California SIP.\42\ The District 
adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan on April 25, 2024, 
and submitted it to CARB for adoption and submission to EPA as a SIP 
revision.\43\ The April 29, 2024 SIP submission includes the 2024 SJV 
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan (including appendices), as well as 
supporting material including the resolutions of adoption, CARB 
evaluation and completeness forms, and evidence of public notice and 
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ CARB adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan as 
a SIP revision on April 26, 2024, through CARB Executive Order S-24-
2003, and submitted the SIP revision to the EPA electronically on 
April 29, 2024, as an attachment to a letter dated April 26, 2024, 
from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB to Martha 
Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    \43\ See SJVUAPCD Board Resolution 2024-4-11 and letter dated 
April 25, 2024, from Jonathan Klassen, Director of Air Quality 
Planning and Science, SJVUAPCD to Sylvia Vanderspek, Branch Chief, 
Rule Evaluations section, CARB.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 85124]]

    The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes a general 
discussion of contingency measures and related guidance, including the 
EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. The Plan also 
contains a calculation of emissions equal to one year's worth of 
progress, a discussion of the two adopted contingency measures that 
apply to this area, namely, the contingency provisions in District Rule 
4601 (referred to as the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure) 
and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure, and an estimate of 
reductions from each adopted contingency measure. The submittal also 
includes a commitment to adopt and submit to the EPA, within one year 
of the EPA's final conditional approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone 
Contingency Measure Plan, amendments to certain District rules, to 
include additional contingency provisions.\44\ These rules are District 
Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) (``Architectural Coatings Rule''), 
Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products, Plastic Parts 
and Products, and Pleasure Crafts) (``Surface Coating of Metal Parts 
and Products Rule''), Rule 4604, (Can and Coil Coating Operations) 
(``Can and Coil Coatings Rule''), Rule 4653 (Adhesives and Sealants) 
(``Adhesives and Sealants Rule''), and Rule 4663 (Organic Solvent 
Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal) (``Solvent Cleaning Rule''). We 
describe the specific contingency measure provisions that would be 
included in amendments to these rules in section IV.D of this document. 
The submission also includes infeasibility demonstrations to address 
the fact that the total reductions estimated from the two adopted 
contingency measures fall short of the recommended emissions reductions 
(equivalent to one year's worth of progress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ After the Plan was submitted, the District and CARB 
submitted letters clarifying the timeline for adopting and 
submitting to the EPA the five additional contingency measures that 
they have committed to develop. Letter from Samir Sheikh, Executive 
Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S. 
Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB and Martha Guzman, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 18, 2024. Letter from 
Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Division Chief, Air Quality Planning & 
Science Division, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, 
EPA Region IX, dated June 24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation for Compliance With SIP Revision Procedural Requirements

    Under CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l), SIPs and SIP revisions must 
be adopted by the State, and the State must provide for reasonable 
public notice and hearing prior to adoption. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102, 
states must provide at least 30-days' notice of any public hearing to 
be held on a proposed SIP revision. States must provide the opportunity 
to submit written comments and allow the public the opportunity to 
request a public hearing within that period.
    The District adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan on 
April 25, 2024, through Resolution No. 2024-4-11, following a public 
hearing held on the same day. Prior to adoption, the District published 
notice of the April 25, 2024 public hearing via an email to members of 
a District electronic mailing list and provided 30 days for submission 
of written comments. CARB subsequently adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone 
Continency Measure Plan as a revision to the SIP on April 26, 2024, 
through Executive Order S-24-003. CARB then submitted the 2024 SJV 
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan on April 29, 2024, as an attachment to a 
transmittal letter dated April 26, 2024. Copies of all of these 
documents can be found in the docket for this proposed rule.
    Based on the materials provided in the April 29, 2024 SIP 
submission, we propose to find that the District and CARB have met the 
procedural requirements for adoption and submission of SIPs and SIP 
revisions under CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l), and 40 CFR 51.102.

IV. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Contingency Measure Plan

    The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes a calculation 
of one year's worth of progress, an analysis of top source categories 
in the emissions inventory, a list of existing contingency measures and 
commitments to adopt and submit additional contingency measures, and a 
contingency measure feasibility analysis. In this section we describe 
each of these components of the plan.

A. One Year's Worth of Progress

    Section 3 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan contains 
calculations for the contingency measure reduction targets that are 
equivalent to one year's worth of progress.\45\ One year's worth of 
progress is calculated by determining the average annual reductions 
between the base year emissions inventory and the projected attainment 
year emissions inventory, determining what percentage of the base year 
emissions inventory this amount represents, then applying that 
percentage to the projected attainment year emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 6-7. All emissions 
inventory data represent summer average emissions, specifically from 
the months of May through October.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting emissions reductions targets are shown in table 1.

   Table 1--One Year's Worth of Progress Contingency Measure Reduction
                    Targets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
                [Tons per day, summer average emissions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Attainment
               Base year                    year         NOX       VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012..................................         2031      4.22      1.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 2, 2024 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.

B. Emissions Inventory Analysis and Contingency Measures

    The District reviewed the 2017, 2031, and 2037 baseline summer 
average emissions inventories for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC to identify 
the principal source categories that contribute to regional emissions 
totals and thereby to identify the source categories for which 
meaningful emissions reductions from contingency measures might be 
achievable.\46\ Its analysis also included an evaluation of select 
source categories that comprise less than 1% of the total VOC emissions 
inventory.\47\ Year 2017 represents the base year of the most recent 
emissions inventory for San Joaquin Valley, 2031 represents the 
attainment year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 2037 represents the 
attainment year for 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5, 13-18.
    \47\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, p. 
74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows that emissions from the top ten source categories for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC constituted approximately 82% and 74% of the 
total inventory of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC, respectively, in the San 
Joaquin Valley in 2017.\48\ Appendix A to the 2024 SJV Ozone 
Contingency Measure Plan contains additional tables showing these 
emissions categories and their magnitudes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 6.

[[Page 85125]]



              Table 2--Top Ten Source Categories of NOX and VOC Emissions, San Joaquin Valley, 2017
                                                [Summer average]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Emissions as a
          Ozone precursor                       Source category              Emissions    percentage of a total
                                                                               (tpd)            inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...............................  Heavy Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT) \a\....        56.65                    24.63
                                    Farm Equipment........................        50.45                    21.93
                                    Off Road Equipment....................        24.01                    10.44
                                    Trains................................        13.12                     5.70
                                    Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) \b\...         9.22                     4.01
                                    Light Heavy Duty Trucks (LHDT1) \c\...         7.94                     3.45
                                    Food and Agricultural Processing......         7.12                     3.09
                                    Medium Duty Trucks (MDT) \d\..........         6.86                     2.98
                                    Light Duty Passenger (LDA)............         6.47                     2.81
                                    Off Road Equipment (PERP) \e\.........         5.87                     2.55
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Total of Top Ten Source Subcategories--      187.71                    81.59
                                     NOX.
VOC...............................  Farming Operations \f\................        93.76                    27.93
                                    Consumer Products.....................        25.78                     7.68
                                    Other (Waste Disposal) \g\............        21.54                     6.42
                                    Pesticides/Fertilizers \h\............        20.81                     6.20
                                    Recreational Boats....................        20.37                     6.07
                                    Managed Burning and Disposal..........        16.38                     4.88
                                    Off-Road Equipment....................        14.95                     4.45
                                    Food and Agriculture..................        12.76                     3.80
                                    Oil and Gas Production................        11.46                     3.41
                                    Light Duty Passenger (LDA)............        10.82                     3.22
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Total of Top Ten Source Subcategories--      248.63                    74.06
                                     VOC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ HHDT have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 33,000 pounds.
\b\ MHDT have a GVWR of 14,001 to 33,000 pounds.
\c\ LHDT1 have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 pounds.
\d\ MDT have a GVWR of 5,751 to 8,500 pounds.
\e\ Off Road Equipment (PERP) refers to off-road equipment registered under CARB's Portable Equipment
  Registration Program. Owners or operators of portable engines and other types of equipment can register their
  units under the CARB Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) in order to operate their
  equipment throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.
\f\ Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is associated with livestock husbandry, particularly
  silage and dairy cattle waste.
\g\ Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is associated with composting.
\h\ Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is association with agricultural pesticide use.
Source: 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 6.

    Based on the emissions inventory information, SJVUAPCD identified 
existing and planned future controls for each sector in the 
nonattainment area. In this context, existing controls refer to the 
limits and requirements for different source categories set forth in 
the District, CARB, and EPA rules and regulations. Planned future 
controls refer to the commitments to develop and propose control 
measures found in District plans \49\ and in CARB's Valley State SIP 
Strategy and the 2022 State SIP Strategy.\50\ Next, the District 
conducted a search for potential additional controls by source category 
that could achieve additional emission reductions that are not already 
adopted or implemented.\51\ In accordance with the Draft Contingency 
Measures Guidance, the District evaluated the technological and 
economic feasibility of the potential measures and whether the 
potential measure could be implemented within 60 days of being 
triggered and achieve the necessary reductions within two years of 
being triggered.\52\ Based on the feasibility of the potential 
contingency measures, the District conducted a further evaluation of 
specific source categories and contingency measure opportunities.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 3, and 
section 5.
    \50\ CARB, ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State 
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan'' (``Valley State SIP 
Strategy''), table 7, approved at 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020); and 
CARB, ``2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan 
(adopted September 22, 2022)'' (``2022 State SIP Strategy''), 
submitted on February 23, 2023, table 3.
    \51\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.1-5.7, 
and 5.11, 19-54 and 72-74.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, 74-
89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concurrently, CARB identified existing and planned future controls 
for mobile and area sources that could achieve additional emissions 
reductions that are not already adopted or implemented.\54\ CARB then 
evaluated the technological and economic feasibility of the potential 
measures, and whether the potential measure could be implemented within 
60 days of being triggered and achieve the necessary reductions within 
two years of being triggered.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.8, 5.9 
and 5.10, and appendix B.
    \55\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan identifies two already-
adopted contingency measures (i.e., rules that contain contingency 
provisions to be triggered in the event of a failure to attain or to 
meet an RFP milestone) and five additional contingency measures that 
the District has committed to adopt and CARB has committed to submit to 
the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. The two existing 
contingency measures are described in section IV.C of this document, 
and the five additional contingency measures are described in section 
IV.D of this document.

C. Adopted Contingency Measures

    The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan identifies two existing 
contingency measures that have already

[[Page 85126]]

been adopted as revisions to the SIP and submitted to EPA: the 
District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and CARB's Smog 
Check Contingency Measure. See section I.C of this document for a 
description of the two adopted contingency measures. The Plan 
calculated the emissions reductions expected from these measures, in 
the event that they are triggered. Those estimates are shown in table 
3.

    Table 3--Ozone Season Emissions Reductions From District and CARB
                          Contingency Measures
                         [Ozone season, tpd] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Contingency measure                      NOX      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architectural Coatings \b\.............................    0.000   0.650
CARB Smog Check \c\....................................    0.079   0.025
                                                        ----------------
    Total..............................................    0.079   0.675
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 4.2.
\b\ The District's estimate of emissions reductions from the
  Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure (if triggered) represents a
  7.5% reduction in area-wide VOC emissions from architectural coatings
  in 2031 and takes into account the percentage of VOC emissions
  associated with architectural coatings sold in small containers and
  the percentage of the small-container emissions associated with the
  particular coatings affected by the contingency measure provision. See
  SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4601
  (Architectural Coatings) April 16, 2020, pages 12-13. These emissions
  reductions do not include reductions associated with the District's
  commitment to remove the small container exemption for rust
  preventative coatings in Rule 4601.
\c\ These emissions reductions account for the first triggering event of
  this contingency measure.

    As noted in section I.C. of this document, the EPA approved the 
District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure as a revision to 
the California SIP in 2022.\56\ Upon a triggering event, this 
contingency measure would remove the exemption for certain categories 
of architectural coatings sold in containers with a volume of one liter 
or less (referred to as the small container exemption (SCE)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 87 FR 78544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The California Smog Check Program is a vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program administered by the California Bureau of Automotive 
Repair (BAR), that identifies vehicles with faulty emission control 
components. Smog Check Program inspections are required biennially as a 
part of the vehicle registration process and/or when a vehicle changes 
ownership or is registered for the first time in California.\57\ 
Currently, under California law, vehicles up to eight model years old 
(MYO) are exempt from the requirement to pass a biennial smog check 
inspection.\58\ The Smog Check Contingency Measure adds a contingency 
provision to the existing program, that, within 30 days of a triggering 
event, the CARB Executive Officer would direct BAR to amend the 
California Smog Check Program's vehicle model-years old (MYO) exemption 
from the existing eight or less MYO to seven or less MYO, in the San 
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.\59\ In addition, the California Smog 
Check Contingency measure can be triggered a second time in the same 
nonattainment area upon a second triggering event.\60\ If triggered a 
second time, the Smog Check exemption would be amended from seven or 
less MYO to six or less MYO in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 
area.\61\ The EPA recently approved CARB's Smog Check Contingency 
Measure as a revision to the California SIP.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 4.2, 12.
    \58\ California Health & Safety Code section 44011(a)(4)(B)(ii).
    \59\ The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, 
15. The Smog Check Contingency Measure also applies to other NAAQS 
and nonattainment areas.
    \60\ The triggering events that would result in the 
implementation of Smog Check Contingency Measure relate to multiple 
NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley in addition to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
including the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and multiple PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. However, because the Smog Check Contingency Measure provides 
for a second triggering event, it will still be available for a 
triggering event related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS if it is first 
triggered by a determination related to one of the other NAAQS. 
Given the nature of the contingency measure (reducing the model-year 
exemption from eight to seven upon a first triggering event, and 
then from seven to six upon a second triggering event), we would 
expect the associated emissions reductions from implementation of 
the contingency measure to be roughly the same for both triggering 
events.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ 89 FR 56222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures

    The Plan also identifies five additional contingency measures that 
the District has committed to adopt and submit to CARB, for submission 
to EPA as a revision to the California SIP. Specifically, the District 
and CARB have committed to amend the following rules to include 
contingency provisions: the Architectural Coatings Rule, Surface 
Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil Coatings Rule, 
Adhesives and Sealants Rule, and Solvent Cleaning Rule. Expected 
emissions reductions from these yet-to-be-adopted contingency measures 
have not been quantified and were not included in the Plan; however, 
the Plan notes that VOC reductions anticipated through the rule 
amendments that the district has committed to adopt are expected to be 
small.\63\ No NO<INF>X</INF> reductions would result from these 
additional contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committed-to revisions to the District's Architectural Coatings 
Rule, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil 
Coatings Rule, Adhesives and Sealants Rule, and Solvent Cleaning Rule 
are described in section 5.12 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure 
Plan and are summarized in this document.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, 74-
89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's Architectural Coatings Rule establishes VOC content 
limits for architectural coatings. The District had previously included 
a contingency measure in the Architectural Coatings Rule that, if 
triggered, would narrow the SCE for certain architectural coatings, 
though not for rust preventative coatings. In the potential control 
measure analysis developed by the District for the 2024 SJV Ozone 
Contingency Measure Plan, the District found that the rust preventative 
coatings SCE could also be removed as part of the contingency measure. 
In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District commits to 
amend Rule 4601 to incorporate the removal of the SCE for rust 
preventative coatings within the contingency measure provision with 
respect to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule 
establishes VOC content limits for coatings used in the manufacturing 
and fabrication of metal parts and products as well as separate VOC 
limits for coatings used in large appliances and metal furniture. 
Except for large appliances or metal furniture, the general VOC limits 
for baked coatings and for air-dried coatings are 275 grams/liter (g/L) 
(i.e., 2.3 pounds/gallon) and 340 g/L (2.8 pounds/gallon), 
respectively. The Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule 
exempts the stripping of cured coatings, cured adhesives, and cured 
inks, except the stripping of such materials from spray application 
equipment. In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District 
commits to revise the Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule 
to include a contingency measure that, if triggered, would remove the 
exemption for stripping agents for metal

[[Page 85127]]

parts and products and subject those stripping agents to a limit of 200 
grams/liter.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's Can and Coil Coatings Rule applies to can and coil 
coating operations and to organic solvent cleaning, storage, and 
disposal associated with can and coil coating operations. The Can and 
Coil Coatings Rule limits the VOC content of different compliant 
coatings and allows the use of non-compliant coatings with an emission 
control device to reduce VOC emissions. The rule contains provisions 
for organic solvent cleaning, organic solvent storage, disposal 
requirements, application methods for coatings, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping. The rule establishes a limit of 250 g/L for organic 
solvents used for cleaning coating application equipment and sheet 
coaters for three-piece cans. In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure 
Plan, the District commits to revise the Can and Coil Coatings Rule to 
include a contingency measure that, if triggered, would lower the VOC 
limit from 250 g/L to 25 g/L for organic solvents used for cleaning 
coating application equipment and sheet coaters for three-piece 
cans.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's Adhesives and Sealants Rule sets VOC content limits 
for adhesive products, sealant products, and associated solvent 
cleaning operations, and it applies to any person who supplies, sells, 
offers for sale, or applies any adhesive product, sealant product, or 
associated solvent, used within the District. The Adhesives and 
Sealants Rule contains a limit of 510 g/L for PVC welding adhesives. In 
the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District commits to 
revise the Adhesive and Sealants Rule to include a contingency measure 
that, if triggered, would lower the VOC limit from 510 g/L to 500 g/L 
for PVC welding adhesives.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's Solvent Cleaning Rule controls VOC emissions from 
organic solvent cleaning outside a degreaser (tank, tray, drum, or 
other container) as well as storage and disposal of the solvents. The 
Solvent Cleaning Rule has solvent VOC content requirements for general 
product cleaning or surface preparation, repair and maintenance 
cleaning, and cleaning coating/adhesive application equipment (all 25 
grams of VOC per Liter (g-VOC/L)). The Rule also imposes VOC content 
requirements for specific other categories (ranging from 100-800 g-VOC/
L) or alternatively requires an equivalent control system with no less 
than 90% overall control for the emissions generated and containers for 
solvent storage and disposal. Currently, the Solvent Cleaning Rule does 
not include a limit for organic solvents used to sterilize food and 
manufacturing processing equipment. In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan, the District commits to revise the Solvent Cleaning Rule 
to include a contingency measure that, if triggered, would establish a 
limit of 200 g/L for organic solvents used for sterilizing food and 
manufacturing processing equipment.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis

    The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes infeasibility 
justifications for providing contingency measures that achieve less 
than one year's worth of progress, generally following the approach 
that the EPA describes for such analyses in the EPA's Draft Revised 
Contingency Measure Guidance. The feasibility analysis for source 
categories under District jurisdiction is found in sections 5.1-5.7 of 
the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, and further evaluation of 
select source categories under SJV District jurisdiction is found in 
section 5.12. The feasibility analysis for source categories under 
State jurisdiction is found in sections 5.8-5.10 and appendix B. For 
certain source categories, such as boilers, steam generators, and 
process heaters with total rated heat input greater than five million 
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and commercial charbroiling, 
the District relies on and refers to previous analysis that the 
District included in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP 
Revision.\70\ Lastly, in section 5.11 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan, the District addresses opportunities for transportation 
control measures (TCMs) to be adopted as contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ SJVUAPCD, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure State 
Implementation Plan Revision, May 18, 2023 (``PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Contingency Measure SIP Revision''). The EPA proposed approval of 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision at 88 FR 87988 
(December 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to source categories under District jurisdiction, the 
District analyzed the wide range of stationary and area sources for 
contingency measure opportunities, which included identifying potential 
control measures, analyzing the technological and economic feasibility 
of such measures, and assessing whether the measures could be 
implemented within 60 days and achieve emission reductions within one 
to two years. The District analyzed potential control measures in the 
fuel combustion, waste disposal, cleaning and surface coating, 
petroleum production and marketing, industrial processes, solvent 
evaporation, and miscellaneous processes emissions inventory source 
categories. Based on this analysis, the District further analyzed 
certain specific categories for contingency measure opportunities. More 
specifically, the District analyzed Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal 
Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations), Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 
Facilities), Architectural Coatings Rule, Surface Coating of Metal 
Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil Coating Rule, Rule 4605 
(Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations), Adhesives and 
Sealants Rule, Organic Solvent Cleaning Rule, Rule 4684 (Polyester 
Resin Operations), and Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks).
    Through this process, the District identified additional possible 
contingency measures, through amendments to Rule 4601 (Architectural 
Coatings), Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products, 
Plastic Parts and Products, and Pleasure Crafts), Rule 4604 (Can and 
Coil Coating Operations), Rule 4653 (Adhesives and Sealants) and Rule 
4663 (Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage and Disposal), as noted in 
section IV.D of this document. The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure 
Plan included commitments to adopt the amendments to these rules, as 
described in section III.A of this document. Additionally, the District 
and CARB have committed to adopt and submit the amended rules to the 
EPA as revisions to the California SIP within one year of the EPA's 
final conditional approval of the commitments.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The timing for the adoption and submittal of the amended 
rules to the EPA for inclusion in the SIP was clarified by letter, 
after submission of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. See 
letter from Samir Sheikh, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control 
Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S. Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB 
and Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 
18, 2024, and letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Division Chief, 
Air Quality Planning & Science Division, CARB, to Martha Guzman, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the other source categories under District 
jurisdiction, the District's analysis found that it was infeasible to 
adopt additional contingency measures for these categories. A detailed 
accounting of reasons for which new contingency measures in each source 
category were determined to be infeasible is contained in sections 5.1 
through 5.7, and 5.12 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency

[[Page 85128]]

Measure Plan. These reasons include conclusions that further controls 
are not technologically or economically feasible, that rules have 
recently been amended and owners or operators in affected source 
categories are still working to comply with recently adopted rule 
changes, that the source category does not lend itself to a rule that 
has a trigger mechanism, and that the District is already implementing 
the most stringent controls feasible. Additional reasons include that 
the rule meets or exceeds federal RACT requirements and that the 
rulemaking process, including public process, to develop such a rule 
would take longer than two years.
    With respect to source categories under State jurisdiction, CARB 
stated that opportunities for contingency measures that would achieve 
the recommended amount of emission reductions are limited due to the 
stringency of their existing mobile source control program and the fact 
that the portion of emissions due to federally-regulated sources is 
expected to increase in the coming years.\72\ CARB further noted that a 
relatively limited portion of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are regulated by 
local air districts in California and that additional control measures 
to achieve the one year's worth of emission reductions are scarce or 
nonexistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pages 
7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB stated that if such measures were identified, they would be 
adopted to improve air quality and help attain the NAAQS, rather than 
held in reserve as contingency measures, and that control measures to 
achieve large emission reductions often take longer than two years to 
implement--beyond the one- to two-year timeframe for achieving emission 
reductions for contingency purposes.\73\ For example, CARB stated that 
the three largest NO<INF>X</INF> reduction measures committed to in the 
2022 State SIP Strategy rely on accelerated turnover of engines and 
trucks and shifting to zero-emission equipment, which is limited by 
infrastructure and equipment options.\74\ CARB further stated that a 
central difficulty in considering contingency measures is that CARB has 
already committed to zero emission standards where feasible and as 
expeditiously as possible to fulfill goals established in California 
Executive Order N-79-20 for mobile sources ranging from light-duty cars 
by 2035 to heavy-duty trucks by 2045.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, page 
7.
    \74\ CARB, ``2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation 
Plan,'' adopted September 22, 2022, Chapter 5 (``State SIP 
Measures'').
    \75\ Executive Department, State of California, Executive Order 
N-79-20, September 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, CARB analyzed all mobile sources under its 
authority to identify potential contingency measures using three 
criteria: CAA requirements, court decisions, and the EPA's Draft 
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.\76\ First, CARB assessed whether 
the measure could be implemented within 60 days of a triggering event 
and achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions within one to 
two years. Second, CARB assessed the technological and economic 
feasibility of implementing the measure, particularly within the one- 
to two-year timeframe. Third, CARB evaluated whether it could adopt the 
measure and secure EPA approval by the September 30, 2024 consent 
decree deadline for the EPA to promulgate a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
contingency measures FIP or alternatively, approve PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
contingency measure SIP submissions meeting the contingency measure 
requirements.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, page 
45.
    \77\ The consent decree to which CARB is referring is the 
consent decree in the Comite[acute] Progreso de Lamont, et al. v. 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 3:21-cv-
08733-WHA (N.D. Cal.). See 87 FR 71631 (November 23, 2022). With 
respect to mobile sources, CARB is relying on the same infeasibility 
demonstration in connection with the contingency measure elements 
for San Joaquin Valley for both the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and the 
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding mobile source contingency measures, CARB described 
several challenges that limit the control measure options that would 
meet contingency measure requirements. For new engine standards, CARB 
stated that engine manufacturers need lead time to ``design, plan, 
certify, manufacture, and deploy cleaner engines.'' \78\ Regarding 
consumer-related challenges, CARB stated that additional time would be 
required for ``procurement implementation and there may be additional 
infrastructure needed to meet new requirements.'' \79\ Based on the 
time required for implementing such measures, CARB concluded that 
measures that require fleet turnover or new engine standards are not 
appropriate for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Id.
    \79\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pages 
45-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to mobile source control measures, CARB noted that 
vehicular emissions can be reduced through implementation of TCMs.\80\ 
CARB stated that county planning and transportation districts, and 
local jurisdictions are responsible for identifying, adopting, and 
implementing TCMs. Because of timing concerns associated with the 
transportation planning process, CARB concluded that TCMs are not 
feasible contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.11, 
pages 72-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, CARB stated that its regulations are technology-
forcing, which requires time for industry to plan, develop, and 
implement new technologies and that it is driving mobile sources to 
zero-emissions where feasible to achieve criteria, air toxic, and 
climate pollutant goals. Similarly, CARB argued that the technology-
forcing and zero-emission-based nature of its mobile source regulations 
reduce or eliminate opportunities for contingency measure emission 
reductions. Lastly, CARB stated that its full rulemaking process for 
most mobile source measures takes about five years to develop and 
adopt, which would not be possible prior to the September 30, 2024 
consent decree deadline for the EPA to promulgate a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
contingency measure FIP or approve PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure 
SIP submissions meeting the contingency measure requirements.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, page 
46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through its review of potential contingency measures, CARB 
identified certain revisions to the California Smog Check program as 
feasible for adoption as a contingency measure, culminating in the 
adoption and submission to the EPA of the Smog Check Contingency 
Measure. As noted previously, the EPA has approved the Smog Check 
Contingency Measure as a revision to the California SIP. The Smog Check 
Contingency Measure complements the District contingency measure for 
architectural coatings and the commitments to submit additional 
contingency measures to the EPA. A detailed accounting of the reasons 
CARB cites in determining that additional mobile source contingency 
measures are infeasible is contained in appendix B of the 2024 SJV 
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, table 
51, pages 46-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB also evaluated VOC area source emissions categories and 
controls for potential contingency measures.\83\ The specific source 
categories evaluated by CARB include consumer products, crude oil and 
natural gas facilities, petroleum marketing (vehicle refueling and 
cargo tanks), portable fuel containers (gas cans), and pesticides. CARB 
concluded that there are no

[[Page 85129]]

feasible contingency measures for these sources categories and 
summarized the Agency's assessment and rationale in table 9 of the 2024 
SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.10.
    \84\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 9, pages 69-
71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, based on the adoption of the Architectural Coatings 
Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measures, the 
commitments to adopt and submit five additional District contingency 
measures, and the infeasibility demonstrations, CARB and the District 
conclude that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan fulfills the 
contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for San 
Joaquin Valley.

V. EPA Evaluation

A. One Year's Worth of Progress

    As noted previously, neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing 
regulations establish a specific level of emission reductions that 
implementation of contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA Draft 
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance recommends that contingency 
measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent to 
approximately one year's worth of progress in the nonattainment area. 
As part of the attainment plan SIP submission, the EPA expects states 
to explain the amount of anticipated emissions reductions that the 
contingency measures will achieve. In the event that a state is unable 
to identify and adopt contingency measures that will provide for 
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, then the EPA 
recommends that the state provide a reasoned justification why the 
smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate.
    We have reviewed the calculations in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan, as summarized in table 1 of this document, and are 
proposing to find that the District calculated one year's worth of 
progress for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in San 
Joaquin Valley in a manner consistent with the EPA's recommendations in 
the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. We have also reviewed 
the calculations in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan used to 
compare the emissions reductions from the Architectural Coatings 
Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure with one 
year's worth of progress and are proposing to generally find them to be 
acceptable, with the exception that the calculation for the 
Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure should reflect more recent 
emission inventory data for the architectural coatings source 
category.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ We are relying on the District's emissions estimate of the 
VOC reductions for the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure in 
table 4 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan that is shown 
for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard because that estimate reflects 
updated emissions inventory data for the architectural coatings 
source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 presents the estimated emissions reductions as percentages 
of one year's worth of progress, consistent with the EPA's Draft 
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.

  Table 4--EPA Evaluation of District and CARB Contingency Measures as Percentage of One Year's Worth (OYW) of
                                                    Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Reductions expected
                Pollutant                      OYW of progress:           from contingency     % OYW expected to
                                            reductions target (tpd)        measures (tpd)         be achieved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................  4.22......................                    0.079               1.88
VOC.....................................  1.87......................                \a\ 0.355          \b\ 18.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimate in table 4 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard
  has been substituted for the estimate shown for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard because the former reflects
  updated emissions inventory data for the architectural coatings source category.
\b\ Reflects the sum of 0.33 tpd VOC emissions reductions from the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure
  and 0.025 tpd VOC emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure.
Source: 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, tables 2, 4, and 5, unless otherwise noted.

    As noted in a footnote to table 4 in this document, we have used 
the emissions reductions estimates for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard 
from 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan in place of the emissions 
reductions estimates for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard from the Plan 
because the estimates for the 2015 standard reflects updated emissions 
inventory data for the architectural coatings source category. 
Consequently, our estimates of the emissions from the contingency 
measures relative to one year's worth of progress differ from those 
contained in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. Nevertheless, 
our conclusion is the same as the conclusion drawn by the District and 
CARB, namely, that the emissions reductions would provide only a 
portion of one year's worth of progress for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>. 
Thus, we would expect the State to provide a ``reasoned justification'' 
to support approval of the contingency measures as meeting the 
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the San 
Joaquin Valley even though the contingency measures would not provide 
for the magnitude of emissions reductions recommended by the EPA. The 
District and CARB have included their reasoned justifications in the 
form of feasibility analyses in Chapter 5 and appendix B of the 2024 
SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. We provide our review of the 
feasibility analyses in section V.D of this document.

B. Contingency Measures

    As previously discussed, to meet the applicable requirements, 
contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures 
that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or 
failure of the area to meet the relevant NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date. In general, we expect all actions needed to effect 
full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after the 
EPA notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP or to attain. Moreover, 
we expect the additional emissions reductions from the contingency 
measures to be partially achieved within a year or two of the 
triggering event. To satisfy the contingency measure requirements of 
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), the contingency measures adopted 
as

[[Page 85130]]

part of a 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment plan must consist of control 
measures for the area that are not otherwise required to meet other 
attainment plan requirements (e.g., to meet RACM or RACT requirements).
    The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan relies on two adopted 
contingency measures: the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure 
and the Smog Check Contingency Measure. As noted previously, we have 
already approved both contingency measures and, in each instance, 
determined that the contingency measures meet the requirements for such 
measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 87 FR 78544 (Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure 
approval) and 89 FR 5622 (July 9, 2024) (Smog Check Contingency 
Measure approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures

    In addition to the adopted contingency measures, the 2024 SJV Ozone 
Contingency Measure Plan includes commitments to adopt and submit 
additional contingency measures. We have evaluated the commitments made 
by the District to adopt an expansion of the contingency measure in the 
Architectural Coatings Rule to remove the SCE for rust preventative 
coatings and to adopt new contingency measures in the Surface Coating 
of Metal Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil Coatings Rule, Adhesives 
and Sealants Rule, and Solvent Cleanings Rule. We have also evaluated 
the commitments by the District and CARB to adopt and submit the rule 
revisions to the EPA within one year of the EPA's final approval.
    We are proposing to find that the measures that the District has 
committed to adopt represent additional controls or measures that are 
not already implemented and that would provide emissions reductions 
beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose, and thus, they may be 
relied upon as contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We will 
review the specifics of each revised or new contingency measure for 
compliance with the requirements for such measures under CAA sections 
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) when the amended rules are adopted and 
submitted to the EPA for approval as revisions to the California SIP.
    Also, as clarified by the letters submitted by the District and 
CARB,\87\ we are proposing to find that the commitments in the Plan to 
adopt new or amended contingency measures within one year of a final 
conditional approval are the type of commitments to adopt ``specific 
enforceable measures by a date certain'' that allow the EPA to propose 
a conditional approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan 
under CAA section 110(k)(4).\88\ In this regard, we note that the 
District and CARB have clarified that the District has committed to 
transmit the revised rules to CARB in a timely manner such that CARB 
can meet its commitment to transmit the revised rules to the EPA as SIP 
revisions within one year of the effective date of the final 
conditional approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Letter from Samir Sheikh, Executive Director/Air Pollution 
Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S. Cliff, Executive 
Officer, CARB and Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 
IX, dated June 18, 2024. Letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env., 
Division Chief, Air Quality Planning & Science Division, CARB, to 
Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 24, 
2024.
    \88\ CAA section 110(k)(4) provides that the EPA may approve a 
SIP revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt specific 
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year 
after the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such 
conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval if the State 
fails to comply with such commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis

    The EPA has reviewed the State's infeasibility demonstrations for 
not adopting contingency measures beyond the Architectural Coatings 
Contingency Measure, Smog Check Contingency Measure, and the five new 
or amended contingency measures that the District has committed to 
adopt, including both the processes used by the District and CARB and 
their assessments specific to a wide range of stationary, area, and 
mobile source categories. Notably, in connection with the EPA's 
proposed contingency measure FIP for the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA 
recently prepared a detailed evaluation of source categories and 
measures that we considered as potential additional contingency 
measures but determined to be infeasible or otherwise unsuitable for 
contingency measures. Although the EPA proposed the FIP to address the 
fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) contingency measure 
requirement, some of the analysis is relevant for ozone, as 
NO<INF>X</INF> was evaluated in the FIP as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursor, and is also a precursor for ozone. See ``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''). We have 
relied on that TSD given its breadth and depth, as well as the 
expertise of EPA Region IX staff, to review the District's and CARB's 
infeasibility demonstrations with respect to NO<INF>X</INF> measures, 
understand where the State's and the EPA's analyses draw largely 
similar conclusions, and identify those source categories where the 
control measure analyses differ.\89\ As described in the following 
paragraphs, the EPA proposes to find that the District's and CARB's 
infeasibility demonstrations adequately justify the collection of 
contingency measures selected by the State to meet the contingency 
measure requirement under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 
San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ While the EPA Reasoned Justification TSD was prepared in 
connection with a PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure FIP, the 
analysis contained therein is relevant for our review of the 2024 
SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan to the extent it addresses 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions sources and controls given that 
NO<INF>X</INF> is a precursor for both ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 
the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of process, the District and CARB identified and evaluated 
existing and potential control measures using components of the process 
recommended in the EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measures 
Guidance.\90\ As described in section IV.E of this proposed rule, for 
the wide range of stationary and area sources under its jurisdiction, 
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.\91\ The District also provided more in-depth 
analysis of potential control measures for ten source categories, 
ultimately adopting commitments for new or amended contingency measures 
for five source categories and providing a reasoned justification for 
not adopting such measures for the other five source categories.\92\ We 
are proposing to find that the District employed a reasonable process 
to identify and assess the feasibility and suitability of potential 
control measures as contingency

[[Page 85131]]

measures for stationary and area sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ EPA's Draft Contingency Measure Guidance, section 4 
(``Reasoned Justification for Less Than [One Year's Worth] of 
Progress'').
    \91\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.1 
through 5.7, and 5.11.
    \92\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, and 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision (for the 
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters >5 MMBtu/hour source 
category).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, CARB identified potential mobile source and area source 
control measures, assessed whether each candidate measure could be 
implemented within 60 days of a triggering event and emission 
reductions achieved within one to two years, and then analyzed their 
technological and/or economic feasibility.\93\ Regarding timing of 
emission reductions from mobile sources, CARB concluded that new engine 
standards 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure, section 5.10, and 
appendix B, pages 44-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD,\94\ as a 
general matter, new mobile source engine or vehicle emission standards 
require significant lead time (more than two years) to allow 
manufacturers time to retool factories to produce compliant engines or 
vehicles. Retrofit or replacement requirements also require significant 
lead time to allow owners and operators to manage the process of 
retrofitting or replacing old engines or vehicles. Therefore, we agree 
with CARB that such mobile source control measures (that require 
significant lead time to implement) would not achieve emission 
reductions within one to two years of a contingency measure triggering 
event. In sum, we are proposing to find that CARB employed a reasonable 
process to identify and assess the feasibility and suitability of 
potential control measures as contingency measures for mobile sources 
in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 141-144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect the District's and CARB's justifications that it is 
infeasible to adopt additional contingency measures, the EPA notes that 
technological and economic feasibility are generally acceptable 
considerations for evaluating the feasibility of additional contingency 
measure controls for relevant source categories. Accordingly, we are 
proposing to find the infeasibility demonstrations are adequately 
justified for the following reasons (as described in the 2024 SJV 
Contingency Measure Plan): further controls for specific source 
categories are not technologically or economically feasible, the source 
category does not lend itself to a rule that has a trigger mechanism, 
or the District is already implementing the most stringent controls 
possible.
    However, the EPA notes that the fact that a particular rule meets 
or exceeds federal RACT requirements is not a sufficient justification 
for concluding that additional controls for that category are 
infeasible. Contingency measures are intended to be measures that 
achieve reductions beyond the reductions associated with other 
applicable CAA requirements for the nonattainment area. Therefore, 
additional controls that exceed what is required to implement RACT 
could very well be viable candidates for contingency measures. 
Additionally, the length of the rulemaking process is not a valid 
consideration for finding a control measure infeasible that would 
otherwise be feasible to adopt. We expect states with nonattainment 
area contingency measure requirements to proactively identify relevant 
candidate measures such that the rulemaking process does not impede 
timely development of contingency measures. We are therefore proposing 
to find that the District's and CARB's stated reasons of already 
meeting or exceeding RACT for the relevant source category, or 
expecting a lengthy rulemaking process, are not relevant justifications 
for not adopting additional contingency measures. In this instance, 
however, neither CARB nor the District found potential contingency 
measures infeasible solely because additional controls would exceed the 
RACT requirement or because the rulemaking process would take too long.
    For each of the stationary and area source categories examined that 
relate primarily to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the EPA is proposing to 
find that additional control measures cannot feasibly reduce emissions 
within one to two years. In the following paragraphs, we describe those 
source categories where we agree with the bases presented by the 
District. We then discuss those source categories where the basis of 
the EPA's conclusion differs from that of the District, even while the 
conclusion itself is the same--that the additional control measure 
evaluated cannot feasibly reduce emissions within one to two years.
    The District's analyses are substantially the same as those of the 
EPA for the following source categories: flares (Rule 4311), solid 
fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters (Rule 4352), 
glass melting furnaces (Rule 4354), internal combustion engines (Rule 
4702), stationary gas turbines (Rule 4703), and natural gas-fired, fan 
type residential central furnaces (Rule 4905).
    We note that the candidate NO<INF>X</INF> control measures 
evaluated for internal combustion engines, stationary gas turbines, 
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters would require 
installation of costly and engineering-intensive devices (e.g., oxyfuel 
fired furnaces and natural gas furnaces equipped with selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR) for glass melting). As described in the EPA's 
Reasoned Justification TSD, while these technologies may be available 
and feasible in some contexts, we concluded there that it would be 
technologically infeasible for these measures to be implemented and 
achieve meaningful emission reductions within one to two years.\95\ We 
are therefore proposing to agree with the District's determinations 
that such measures are technologically infeasible as contingency 
measures at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See, e.g., EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 9-22 (the 
EPA's evaluation of contingency measures for boilers, steam 
generators, and process heaters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD does not evaluate 
potential contingency measures specifically related to District Rules 
4309 and 4352 and, thus, we provide our review and evaluation in this 
document.
    With respect to sources covered by Rule 4309, the District 
considered controls for dryers, dehydrators, and ovens, citing to their 
analysis of this source category for the 2022 Ozone Plan.\96\ The 
District found that additional controls such as low NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners could not feasibly be implemented within the relevant 
timeframes for contingency measures for this source category. The 
District noted that the time associated with design, planning, and 
installation of controls would not be feasible to implement within 60 
days of triggering and would exceed the one- to two-year timeline for a 
contingency measure to achieve emissions reductions as recommended in 
EPA's Draft Contingency Measure Guidance. Further, the District states 
that, in certain applications (e.g., dehydrators for onions), the 
controls may have an adverse effect on food product quality, which 
diminishes the technical feasibility of using such controls until the 
technology is further improved.\97\ We have reviewed the District's 
infeasibility demonstration and are proposing to agree that additional 
emissions reductions for this source category could not feasibly be 
achieved within one to two years or are

[[Page 85132]]

not technically feasible in the case of dehydrators for certain 
products, and they are therefore not feasible as contingency measures. 
The EPA recommends that the District continue to evaluate dryers, 
dehydrators, and ovens for opportunities to further reduce 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in developing subsequent plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ SJVUAPCD, 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 
December 15, 2022 (``2022 Ozone Plan''), submitted as a SIP revision 
on February 23, 2023.
    \97\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Rule 4352, which covers solid fuel fired boilers, 
steam generators, and process heaters, the State's submittal notes that 
the District adopted amendments to Rule 4352 in December 2021. The 
District's analysis associated with the 2021 amendments to Rule 4352 
found that all control alternatives that would further reduce emissions 
require technology that had prohibitively high capital costs and 
therefore were not cost effective.\98\ Given the economic infeasibility 
of additional controls for the sources covered by Rule 4352, we are 
proposing to agree with the District's conclusion with respect to Rule 
4352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ SJVUAPCD, ``appendix C, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for 
Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam 
Generators, and Process Heaters,'' December 16, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For several other source categories, the EPA finds that the 
NO<INF>X</INF> contingency measure analyses by the District and the EPA 
differ in certain respects that warrant further discussion. 
Notwithstanding these differences, both the District's analyses and the 
EPA's analyses supporting our recent contingency measure FIP proposal 
support our proposed conclusion that the measures evaluated are 
technologically infeasible because they cannot feasibly reduce 
emissions within one to two years. We discuss each of these source 
categories in the paragraphs that follow.
    With respect to residential water heaters (Rule 4902) and 
residential furnaces (Rule 4905), the District evaluated a candidate 
contingency measure to adopt electrification requirements (i.e., 
requiring newly purchased furnaces and water heaters to be zero-
emission units) on a more expedited timeline than the state-wide 
building electrification measure, to which CARB committed, that would 
achieve emission reductions starting in 2030.\99\ The District deemed 
this contingency measure option technologically infeasible, citing the 
lead time necessary for manufacturers to design and produce electric 
units, the need for collaboration with energy and building code 
regulators, the desire for consistency with State and local efforts, 
the potential for housing cost and affordability impacts, and the 
impact on equity considerations for low-income and environmental 
justice communities.\100\ While we note that some of these factors do 
not necessarily align with the feasibility criteria outlined in the 
EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance,\101\ the EPA is 
proposing to find that the building electrification contingency measure 
option is not feasible because we expect that the measure would not 
result in emissions reductions within two years after trigger.\102\ The 
EPA also recommends that the District consider developing control 
measures or programs that would incentivize the early replacement of 
existing gas space and water heaters with electric appliances, as such 
actions could significantly reduce emissions from this significant 
source category in the longer-term future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ 2024 Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pages 52-54.
    \100\ For further discussion of these factors, see CARB, ``2022 
State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,'' adopted 
September 22, 2022, pp. 101-103 (``Proposed Measures: Residential 
and Commercial Buildings'').
    \101\ EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, pp. 35-
38.
    \102\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 43-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to District Rules 4306 and 4320, which cover oil and 
gas production combustion equipment requirements, the District 
evaluated numerous control options including electrification of 
oilfield steam generators and solar powered oilfield steam generators, 
citing its analysis for this source category for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Contingency Measure SIP Revision.\103\ For each of these options, the 
District provided technological and/or economic infeasibility 
justifications. The District also evaluated imposing lower emission 
limits for boilers and steam generators.\104\ In this evaluation, the 
District explained that the EPA has determined that Rule 4306 meets MSM 
requirements and that Rule 4320 goes beyond MSM by establishing even 
lower emissions limits. The District noted that equipment operators are 
already in the process of investing in and installing technology to 
meet the recently amended Rule 4320 limits and suggested that the time 
needed to plan, prepare for installation, and install control equipment 
to meet lower limits would exceed the one- to two-year timeline for a 
contingency measure to achieve emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision, pages 
44-47.
    \104\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision, pages 
47-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's evaluation focused on lowering emission limits for 
boilers and steam generators, including identification of lower 
emission limits adopted by the South Coast AQMD for oilfield steam 
generators than those adopted in Rule 4306. While the EPA's evaluation 
does not indicate that control requirements required to meet the lower 
limits would be technologically infeasible altogether (in light of the 
lower limits adopted by South Coast AQMD), we are proposing to 
determine 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 SCR to 
meet the lower limits. The District noted that the time associated with 
design, planning, and installation of SCR would exceed the one- to two-
year timeline for a contingency measure to achieve emissions 
reductions.
    The District also included evaluations for boilers, steam 
generators, and process heaters that are covered by District Rules 4307 
and 4308.\105\ The District's assessments for these rules focus on 
economic and technological feasibility, citing dollar per ton cost 
effectiveness values for numerous control options and adding 
technological feasibility concerns for EMx\TM\ (formerly SCONOx). The 
EPA's evaluation for boilers does not provide cost effectiveness values 
to suggest that lower emission limits for boilers, steam generators, 
and process heaters are economically infeasible. However, as described 
in the EPA's evaluation, we are proposing to find that units required 
to meet lower limits than those already adopted in Rules 4307 and 4308 
would require installation of SCR and that this cannot be feasibly 
achieved within the two-year timeframe for contingency measures.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pages 20-22.
    \106\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 9-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD for the 
EPA's proposed San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure 
FIP focused solely on controls of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>. Thus, unlike source categories that are entirely or 
substantially associated with NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the EPA could 
not rely on its previous evaluation in EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD 
for that FIP action to inform our review of the District's analysis of 
VOC emissions sources and controls in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan.
    For this proposed action, the EPA reviewed the District's 
evaluation of the seven stationary or area source categories under 
District jurisdiction and the numerous existing District rules that 
apply to sources in those categories

[[Page 85133]]

for potential VOC contingency measures. For most of the rules that were 
evaluated, the District concluded that further controls would not be 
economically or technologically feasible but identified ten rules in 
five source categories for further analysis. With respect to the 
sources and rules that the District did not identify for further 
analysis, we propose to find that the District's evaluation and 
rationale for its conclusion that there are no feasible contingency 
measures available, due to the small contribution from these source 
categories to the overall emissions inventory, is adequately supported.
    Of the ten rules that the District identified for further 
analysis,\107\ the District has committed to adopt contingency measures 
for five of them, as described in section IV.D of this document. For 
the other five rules, the District concluded that there are no feasible 
contingency measures to adopt. We evaluate the District's rationale in 
the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The District's evaluation for the ten rules for which the 
District concluded further analysis is warranted is found in section 
5.12 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Rule 4565, which covers biosolids, animal manure, 
and poultry litter operations, the District's analysis concluded that 
no technologies were currently available to further achieve emissions 
reductions from organic material composting. The District further 
concluded that requiring additional controls for small to medium sized 
facilities was not cost-effective.\108\ We are proposing to agree that 
there are no technologically feasible contingency measures for organic 
material composting and that there are no economically feasible 
contingency measures for small to medium sized facilities, although we 
recommend that the District further evaluate Rule 4565 for 
opportunities to further reduce VOC emissions in developing subsequent 
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ The District presents its cost-effectiveness estimates for 
various Class 1 and Class 2 mitigation measures for medium- and 
small-sized facilities on pages 78 and 79 of the 2024 SJV Ozone 
Contingency Measure Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Rule 4605, which covers aerospace assembly and 
component coating operations, and Rule 4684, which covers polyester 
resin operations, the District's analysis concluded that additional 
emission reductions from these two source categories would be 
insignificant, given that the sources under these two rules emit 0.18 
tpd of VOC emissions, representing only 0.054 percent of the entire VOC 
emissions inventory.\109\ Therefore, the District did not identify 
contingency measure opportunities for either of these source 
categories. We are proposing to agree with the District's conclusions 
with respect to Rules 4605 and 4684, given that the emission reductions 
from these two source categories would be insignificant, representing 
an insignificant percentage of the VOC emissions inventory.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Aerospace assembly and component coating operations 
represent 0.004 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's VOC emissions 
inventory, and polyester resin operations represent 0.05 percent of 
the inventory. See the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 
82, 84.
    \110\ Based on the District's estimates, we note that the 
sources covered by these two rules represent approximately 9.6 
percent of OYW of progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Rule 4694, which covers wine fermentation and 
storage tanks, the District's analysis concluded that the most 
stringent controls are already in place, and additional control 
technologies have not been proven at the scale of the wineries found in 
the San Joaquin Valley or in the climatic conditions that prevail in 
the San Joaquin Valley. Specifically, the District analyzed a published 
BACT guideline, which established a 67 percent combined capture and 
control efficiency requirement, averaged over the fermentation season 
for closed-top wine fermentation tanks with capacities equal to or less 
than 30,000 gallons.\111\ This analysis found that the majority of wine 
fermentation tanks in the San Joaquin Valley are significantly greater 
than 30,000 gallons in capacity, and that winemaking practices are 
significantly different in the San Joaquin Valley.\112\ As such, the 
District concluded that a contingency measure would be incompatible 
with the technologies involved in reducing emissions in this source 
category due to the time needed for necessary construction activities 
such as engineering, redesigning facilities, procuring materials, 
equipment, utilities, scheduling contractors, and installing and 
testing the fermentation controls.\113\ We propose to find that the 
District's evaluation and rationale for its conclusion that no feasible 
contingency measures exist for this source category is adequately 
supported because additional control technologies have not been proven 
at this time at the scale of the wineries found in the San Joaquin 
Valley or in the climatic conditions that prevail in the valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District BACT 
Guideline 4.1, available at https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/BACT-Guideline-4.1.pdf.
    \112\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 84-89.
    \113\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 84-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Rule 4570, which covers confined animal facilities, 
the District's analysis concluded that that the District is 
implementing the most stringent measures feasible and determined that 
further controls of this source category would be technologically 
infeasible. The District based this conclusion on the absence of more 
stringent requirements that have been achieved in practice anywhere in 
the country.\114\ We are proposing to agree with the District's 
conclusions with respect to Rule 4570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ 2024 SJV Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 79-80. The District 
identified an analogous rule adopted by another air district 
(Imperial County APCD) that has a lower applicability threshold for 
the ``other cattle'' category when compared to SJVUAPCD Rule 4570. 
However, Imperial County APCD indicated that Imperial County APCD 
does not have any large ``other cattle'' confined animal facilities 
(CAFs) operating in their region and therefore do not have any 
facilities that would have to comply with this lower threshold. See 
ICAPCD. Rule 217 Large Confined Animal Facilities. (Revised February 
9, 2016). Retrieved from: https://apcd.imperialcounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1RULE217.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to our evaluation of the District's feasibility analysis 
for potential NO<INF>X</INF> contingency measures for sources it 
regulates, we have evaluated CARB's feasibility analysis for the 
sources it regulates, in part by comparing the bases and conclusions of 
the State's analysis against those presented in the EPA's Reasoned 
Justification TSD.\115\ Both CARB and the EPA note the importance of 
mobile source emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, particularly given 
that the large majority of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are from mobile 
sources, and describe the breadth of control measures considered by 
CARB to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for broader CAA purposes in the 
San Joaquin Valley. These include new vehicle and engine emission 
standards for both on-road and non-road applications that generally 
apply to manufacturers and achieve emission reductions through vehicle 
turnover; retrofit or replacement requirements for existing vehicles 
and fleets; and inspection and maintenance (I/M) program requirements, 
such as the requirements implemented under California's Smog Check 
program for light-duty passenger cars and trucks and the requirements 
that CARB has started to implement under California's Heavy-Duty I/M 
program. We agree that the adopted measures and on-going development of 
mobile sources measures by CARB, including zero-emission standards, 
further constrain the available opportunities for

[[Page 85134]]

additional emission reductions via contingency measures.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section H (``Mobile 
Sources'').
    \116\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 139-142. See also, 
2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pp. 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to contingency measure requirements, CARB examined 
potential controls across the wide range of mobile source categories, 
including on-road light-duty passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles; 
medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses and transportation 
refrigeration units; commercial harbor craft, recreational boats, and 
ocean going vessels; off-road industrial, construction, and mining 
equipment; airport ground equipment, port and rail operations, and 
locomotives; lawn and garden equipment; and space and water heaters. As 
potential controls, CARB considered and evaluated pulling forward 
compliance dates and/or phase-in requirements; setting more stringent 
standards (often atop recently tightened standards) through mechanisms 
such as emission standards, emissions caps, thresholds for compliance, 
testing frequency, making optional standards required, or percentage of 
sales requirements; and removing exemptions and/or compliance options. 
In virtually all cases, CARB found that control measures beyond those 
already adopted or in development to fulfill commitments (e.g., under 
the 2022 State SIP Strategy) were not technologically feasible.\117\ In 
all cases (except the adopted Smog Check Contingency Measure), CARB 
found that the measures were not technologically feasible as 
contingency measures because the lead time to develop, certify, adopt, 
and/or implement the measures is too long, and because that the 
potential measures could not be implemented within 60 days of a 
triggering event and achieve emission reductions within one or two 
years of the triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ CARB identified three measures as technologically 
feasible. One is the Smog Check Contingency Measure that CARB has 
adopted and submitted, and that the EPA has approved. A second was a 
different Smog Check measure that would require testing on an annual 
basis (rather than the current biennial basis) or require testing on 
an annual basis only for high mileage vehicles; however, CARB found 
that the compliance burden would disproportionately fall on low-
income populations and disadvantaged communities. 2024 SJV Ozone 
Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, p. 47. The third was to 
increase the testing frequency under the Heavy-Duty I/M program; 
however, CARB found that the compliance burden would 
disproportionately fall on small businesses and low-income 
populations. 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, p. 
49. In the latter two cases, CARB also found that, even if the 
measure were technologically feasible, the measures could not be 
effectuated within the timeframe necessary for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed CARB's specific control measure analyses and are 
proposing to agree that such potential control measures are not 
feasible within the timeframe necessary for contingency measures and, 
in many cases, are not technologically feasible to the extent that they 
build upon measures currently in development that are already 
technology- or market-forcing. The EPA has not identified any engine or 
vehicle emission standards for consideration as contingency measures, 
which remains consistent with the evaluation presented in the EPA's 
Reasoned Justification TSD.\118\ Beyond the wide range of source types 
and control approaches examined by CARB, the EPA also examined a 
handful of potential additional controls in the EPA's Reasoned 
Justification TSD, and our conclusion that they too were not suitable 
as contingency measures remains unchanged. Specifically, we have 
determined that including expansion of Enhanced I/M requirements to 
areas currently subject to ``Basic'' I/M or ``Partial Enhanced'' I/M 
requirements in the San Joaquin Valley,\119\ provisions to expand the 
applicability of and to add requirements to District Rule 9510 
(``Indirect Source Review''),\120\ and additional transportation 
control measures \121\ are not suitable as contingency measures. 
Therefore, we propose to find that CARB's infeasibility demonstration 
adequately justifies the contingency measures selected by CARB for the 
San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 138-144.
    \119\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section IV.E. In 
addition, CARB noted in its comment letter on the EPA's proposed 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure FIP that, under the I/M measure 
evaluated by the EPA, 50% of the vehicles that would be newly 
subject to Enhanced I/M would be in disadvantaged communities 
whereas only 35% of San Joaquin Valley population live in such 
disadvantaged communities. Letter dated September 22, 2023, from 
Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB to Martha Guzman, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. In other words, the 
compliance burden would disproportionately fall on low-income 
populations and disadvantaged communities.
    \120\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section IV.B.
    \121\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 144-146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB supplemented the NO<INF>X</INF> mobile source control measure 
evaluation that CARB provides in the Smog Check Contingency Measure 
SIP, which is included as appendix B of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan, with an evaluation of VOC area source categories that 
fall under State jurisdiction.\122\ The area source categories include 
Pesticides, Oil and Gas, Consumer Products, Portable Fuel Containers 
(Gas Cans), Cargo Tanks and Petroleum Marketing. Based on that 
evaluation, CARB explained for each of the source categories why it 
would be infeasible to achieve additional emissions reductions from 
these source categories within one or two years of triggering. We have 
reviewed CARB's evaluation and propose to find that contingency 
measures for these area source categories would be technologically 
infeasible because they will not achieve emissions reductions within 
one or two years of the triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ CARB's evaluation of VOC area sources is found in section 
5.10 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Conclusion

    Based on the one year's worth of progress for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
VOC reductions that would be achieved from adopted contingency measures 
that meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), 
supplemented by contingency measures that the District and CARB have 
committed to adopt and submit within one year of EPA's final 
conditional approval, and their reasoned justification for achieving 
less than one year's worth of progress contained in the feasibility 
analyses, the EPA proposes to find that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan, adopted rules, and rule commitments together fulfill the 
contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the San 
Joaquin Valley.

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    For reasons discussed above, under CAA section 110(4)(4), we are 
proposing to conditionally approve the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 
Measure Plan as a revision of the California SIP as it pertains to the 
2008 ozone NAAQS. We are doing so based on our preliminary 
determination that, considered together with the existing approved 
contingency measures and the commitments to submit additional 
contingency measures, the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan meets 
the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 
182(c)(9) for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 
including the already adopted contingency measures and commitments, 
corrects the deficiencies in the previous contingency measure element 
submissions for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that we 
partially disapproved in October 2022. Our proposal is conditional 
because it relies on commitments by CARB and the District to supplement 
the 2024 SJV

[[Page 85135]]

Ozone Contingency Measure Plan through submission of additional 
contingency measures within one year of final conditional approval, 
should we finalize this action as proposed.
    In this same issue of the Federal Register, we are also issuing an 
interim final determination, effective upon publication, to stay and 
defer sanctions. Specifically, the determination will stay application 
of the offset sanction and defer application of the highway sanction 
that were triggered by the EPA's October 3, 2022 partial disapproval of 
SIP revisions submitted to address the contingency measure requirements 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley.\123\ The 
determination to stay and defer sanctions is based upon our proposed 
conditional approval action detailed in this document, with respect to 
the revised SIP submissions addressing the contingency measure SIP 
requirement. Please see the interim final determination document for 
further information concerning sanctions and the basis for issuing the 
interim final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed action, our 
rationale for the proposed action, and any other pertinent matters 
related to the issues discussed in this document. We will accept 
comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days and will 
consider comments before taking final action.

VII. 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 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 proposed action merely proposes to conditionally 
approve a state plan as meeting federal requirements and does not 
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For 
that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
    <bullet> 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 proposed 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, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on communities with Environmental Justice 
(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.''
    Neither CARB nor the District evaluated EJconsiderations as part of 
the SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations 
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not 
perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. 
Due to the nature of the action being proposed here, this action, if 
finalized, is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air 
quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as 
part of this action, and there is no information in the record 
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for 
communities with EJ concerns.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.


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

    Dated: October 16, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-24706 Filed 10-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>