Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85119 

proposed rule. We seek any comments 

or information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2024–0198 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. Also, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments are posted, or a final rule is 

published of any posting or updates to 

the docket. 

We review all comments received, but 

we will only post comments that 

address the topic of the proposed rule. 

We may choose not to post off-topic, 

inappropriate, or duplicate comments 

that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision 

No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Amend § 117.911 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 117.911 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 

Little River to Savannah River. 

* * * * * 

(f) Lady’s Island (Woods Memorial) 

Bridge, across the Beaufort River, mile 

536.0, at Beaufort. The draw shall 

operate as follows: 

(1) Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays: 

(i) From 6 a.m. to 9:29 a.m. and 3:31 

p.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need not open 

to navigation; and, 

(ii) Between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 

the draw need open only once an hour 

on the half hour. 

(2) At all other times the draw shall 

open on signal. 

Dated: October 21, 2024. 

Douglas M. Schofield, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Coast Guard Seventh District. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24847 Filed 10–24–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85120 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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. 

2See ‘‘Fact Sheet—2008 Final Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ 

dated March 2008. 3The 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). 4See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

5 Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 

available at 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

6Although 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. 

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

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 

Ledezma.Andrew@epa.gov. 

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 (NOX) 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. 

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

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.5 6

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

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-andcomment 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85121 

8For a precise definition of the boundaries of the 

San Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, 

see 40 CFR 81.305. 

9The 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.’’ 

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. 

13Association 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. 

16 87 FR 59688 (October 3, 2022). 

17 Id, at 59690. 

18 Id. 

19 Id. 

20 87 FR 78544 (December 22, 2022). 

21SJVUAPCD Rule 4601, section 4.3. 

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

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

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

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

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

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85122 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

22 89 FR 56222 (July 9, 2024). 

23 Id. 

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). 

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). 

28 80 FR 12264, 12285. 

29 General Preamble 13512, 13543–13544. 

30 General Preamble, 13511. 

31 80 FR 12264, 12285. See also General 

Preamble, 13511. 

32EPA, 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/airqualityimplementation-plans/draft-contingencymeasuresguidance. 

33 Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, 

p. 29. 

34We 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. 

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

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. 

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

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

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.33 34

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85123 

35Bahr 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). 

36Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 

F.4th 937, 946–47 (9th Cir. 2021). 

37 88 FR 17571 (March 23, 2023). 

38 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016), at 58067/3. 

39 Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, 

p. 22. 

40 Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, 

p. 29. 

41 Id. 

42CARB 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. 

43See 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. 

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. 

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

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

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. 

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

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. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85124 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

44After 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. 

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. 

46 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

section 5, 13–18. 

47 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

section 5.12, p. 74. 

48 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

table 6. 

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). 

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. 

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] 

Base year Attainment 

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 NOX 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. 

Table 2 shows that emissions from the 

top ten source categories for NOX and 

VOC constituted approximately 82% 

and 74% of the total inventory of NOX

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85125 

49See 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure 

Plan, table 3, and section 5. 

50CARB, ‘‘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. 

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. 

TABLE 2—TOP TEN SOURCE CATEGORIES OF NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 2017 

[Summer average] 

Ozone 

precursor Source category Emissions (tpd) 

Emissions as a 

percentage of a 

total 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—NOX ............................................................... 187.71 81.59 

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—VOC ............................................................... 248.63 74.06 

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. 

eOff 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

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

The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 

Measure Plan identifies two alreadyadopted 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85126 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

56 87 FR 78544. 

57 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

section 4.2, 12. 

58California Health & Safety Code section 

44011(a)(4)(B)(ii). 

59The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure 

Plan, appendix B, 15. The Smog Check Contingency 

Measure also applies to other NAAQS and 

nonattainment areas. 

60The 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 PM2.5 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. 

63 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 89. 

64 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

section 5.12, 74–89. 

65 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 80. 

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. bThe 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. cThese 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)). 

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

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-tobe-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 NOX

reductions would result from these 

additional contingency measures. 

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

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

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85127 

66 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 81. 

67 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 82. 

68 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 83. 

69 Id. 

70SJVUAPCD, PM2.5 Contingency Measure State 

Implementation Plan Revision, May 18, 2023 

(‘‘PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP Revision’’). The 

EPA proposed approval of the PM2.5 Contingency 

Measure SIP Revision at 88 FR 87988 (December 20, 

2023). 

71The 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. 

parts and products and subject those 

stripping agents to a limit of 200 grams/ 

liter.66

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

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

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

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 PM2.5

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. 

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

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85128 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

72 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

appendix B, pages 7 and 8. 

73 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

appendix B, page 7. 

74CARB, ‘‘2022 State Strategy for the State 

Implementation Plan,’’ adopted September 22, 

2022, Chapter 5 (‘‘State SIP Measures’’). 

75Executive Department, State of California, 

Executive Order N–79–20, September 23, 2020. 

76 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

appendix B, page 45. 

77The consent decree to which CARB is referring 

is the consent decree in the Comite ́ 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 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

ozone NAAQS. 

78 Id. 

79 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

appendix B, pages 45–46. 

80 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

section 5.11, pages 72–74. 

81 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

appendix B, page 46. 82 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

appendix B, table 51, pages 46–58. 83 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

section 5.10. 

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 NOX 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. 

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 NOX

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

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 PM2.5 contingency 

measures FIP or alternatively, approve 

PM2.5 contingency measure SIP 

submissions meeting the contingency 

measure requirements.77

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. 

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. 

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 

PM2.5 contingency measure FIP or 

approve PM2.5 contingency measure SIP 

submissions meeting the contingency 

measure requirements.81

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

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85129 

84 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

table 9, pages 69–71. 

85We 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. 

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

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 

NOX 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

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

Pollutant 

OYW of progress: 

reductions target 

(tpd) 

Reductions expected 

from contingency 

measures 

(tpd) 

% OYW 

expected 

to be achieved 

NOX ........................................................................................... 4.22 ............................................. 0.079 1.88 

VOC .......................................................................................... 1.87 ............................................. a 0.355 b 18.98 

aThe 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 NOX. 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85130 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

86 87 FR 78544 (Architectural Coatings 

Contingency Measure approval) and 89 FR 5622 

(July 9, 2024) (Smog Check Contingency Measure 

approval). 

87Letter 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. 

88CAA 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. 

89While the EPA Reasoned Justification TSD was 

prepared in connection with a PM2.5 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 

NOX emissions sources and controls given that NOX

is a precursor for both ozone and PM2.5 in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

90EPA’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 PM2.5 Contingency Measure 

SIP Revision (for the boilers, steam generators, and 

process heaters >5 MMBtu/hour source category). 

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

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. 

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 (PM2.5) 

contingency measure requirement, some 

of the analysis is relevant for ozone, as 

NOX was evaluated in the FIP as a PM2.5

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 NOX 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85131 

93 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure, section 

5.10, and appendix B, pages 44–58. 

94EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 141– 

144. 

95See, e.g., EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 

9–22 (the EPA’s evaluation of contingency measures 

for boilers, steam generators, and process heaters). 

96SJVUAPCD, 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. 

measures for stationary and area sources 

in the San Joaquin Valley. 

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 zeroemission equipment. 

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. 

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 NOX 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 NOX

control measures evaluated for internal 

combustion engines, stationary gas 

turbines, boilers, steam generators, and 

process heaters would require 

installation of costly and engineeringintensive 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. 

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 NOX

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85132 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

98SJVUAPCD, ‘‘appendix C, Cost Effectiveness 

Analysis for Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

(Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters,’’ December 16, 2021. 

99 2024 Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pages 

52–54. 

100For 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’’). 101EPA’s Draft Revised Contingency Measures 

Guidance, pp. 35–38. 102EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 43–51. 103PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP Revision, 

pages 44–47. 104PM2.5 Contingency Measure SIP Revision, 

pages 47–49. 

105 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

pages 20–22. 

106EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 9–22. 

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 NOX emissions in developing 

subsequent plans. 

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. 

For several other source categories, 

the EPA finds that the NOX 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 longerterm future. 

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 PM2.5

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. 

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 

EMxTM (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

As noted previously, the EPA’s 

Reasoned Justification TSD for the 

EPA’s proposed San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 contingency measure FIP focused 

solely on controls of direct PM2.5 and 

NOX. Thus, unlike source categories that 

are entirely or substantially associated 

with NOX 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85133 

107The 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. 108The 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. 

109Aerospace 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. 

110Based on the District’s estimates, we note that 

the sources covered by these two rules represent 

approximately 9.6 percent of OYW of progress. 

111Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District 

BACT Guideline 4.1, available at https://

www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/BACTGuideline-4.1.pdf. 

112 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

pp. 84–89. 

113 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 

pp. 84–89. 

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. 

115EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, section H 

(‘‘Mobile Sources’’). 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

Similar to our evaluation of the 

District’s feasibility analysis for 

potential NOX 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 NOX emissions are from 

mobile sources, and describe the 

breadth of control measures considered 

by CARB to reduce NOX 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 HeavyDuty I/M program. We agree that the 

adopted measures and on-going 

development of mobile sources 

measures by CARB, including zeroemission standards, further constrain 

the available opportunities for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85134 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

116EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 139– 

142. See also, 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency 

Measure Plan, appendix B, pp. 8–10. 117CARB 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. 

118EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 138– 

144. 

119EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, section 

IV.E. In addition, CARB noted in its comment letter 

on the EPA’s proposed PM2.5 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. 

120EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, section 

IV.B. 

121EPA’s Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 144– 

146. 

122CARB’s evaluation of VOC area sources is 

found in section 5.10 of the 2024 SJV Ozone 

Contingency Measure Plan. 

additional emission reductions via 

contingency measures.116

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 phasein 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. 

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. 

CARB supplemented the NOX 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. 

E. Conclusion 

Based on the one year’s worth of 

progress for NOX 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85135 

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

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. 

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: 

• 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); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1