Proposed Rule2024-24706
Conditional Approval; Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard; San Joaquin Valley, California
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 25, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 207 (Friday, October 25, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85119-85135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24706]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0338; FRL-12118-01-R9]
Conditional Approval; Contingency Measure State Implementation
Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard; San Joaquin Valley, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve a state implementation plan (SIP) submission
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') that addresses the contingency
measure requirements for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for the San Joaquin Valley ozone
nonattainment area. The SIP submission, titled the ``Ozone Contingency
Measure State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour
Ozone Standards'' (``2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan,''
``Contingency Measure Plan,'' or ``Plan'') relies on two ozone
contingency measures that the EPA has already approved in separate
rulemakings. The proposed approval is conditional because it also
relies on commitments by the State air agency and regional air district
to supplement the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan with
submission of specific additional contingency measures within one year
of the EPA's final conditional approval. The EPA is proposing
conditional approval of the SIP submission because the Agency has
preliminarily determined that the existing approved contingency
measures, the commitments to submit additional contingency measures,
and the justification for not adopting contingency measures that would
achieve the recommended amount for such measures, meet the applicable
requirements for such SIP submissions under the CAA and the EPA's
implementation regulations for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The proposed conditional approval, if finalized, would add
the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan to the federally
enforceable California SIP.
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before November 25, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0338 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on
[[Page 85120]]
making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. If you need assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with a disability who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ledezma, Air Planning Office
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3985, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c488a1a0a1bea9a5ea85aaa0b6a1b384a1b4a5eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e527b7a7b64737f305f707a6c7b695e7b6e7f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background for Proposed Action
A. The 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
Designation, Classification, and Plans
B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
C. Previous EPA Actions Related to Contingency Measures for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
II. Contingency Measure Requirements, Guidance, and Legal Precedent
A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
B. Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
III. Summary of SIP Submission and Evaluation for Compliance With
SIP Revision Procedural Requirements
A. Summary of SIP Submission
B. Evaluation for Compliance With SIP Revision Procedural
Requirements
IV. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Contingency Measure Plan
A. One Year's Worth of Progress
B. Emissions Inventory Analysis and Contingency Measures
C. Adopted Contingency Measures
D. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures
E. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis
V. EPA Evaluation
A. One Year's Worth of Progress
B. Contingency Measures
C. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures
D. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis
E. Conclusion
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for Proposed Action
A. The 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Designation,
Classification, and Plans
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NO<INF>X</INF>) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants,
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources,
including on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment, architectural coatings, and other types of consumer
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of California refers to reactive organic gases
(ROG) in some of its ozone-related submissions. The CAA and the
EPA's regulations refer to VOC, rather than ROG, but both terms
cover essentially the same set of gases. In this proposed rule, we
use the federal term (VOC) to refer to this set of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects
occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults
with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung
function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms
and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA
has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The
EPA has previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979 and 1997.\3\ In
2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the ozone NAAQS by
setting the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 parts
per million (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour period.\4\ Although the EPA
further tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this
action relates to the requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.<SUP>5 6</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1979 was 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202
(February 8, 1979). The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 was 0.08 ppm
averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
\4\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\5\ Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is available at 80 FR
65292 (October 26, 2015).
\6\ Although the district's submittal included submissions to
address requirements for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, at this
time we are taking action on the submittal as it pertains to the
2008 ozone requirements. The EPA plans to act on the submittal with
respect to the 2015 ozone requirements at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the
country as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In 2012, the EPA
designated the San Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
standards and classified that area as ``Extreme.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption and
submission to the EPA of California SIP revisions, and it has broad
authority to establish emissions standards and other requirements for
mobile sources. Local and regional air pollution control districts in
California are responsible for the regulation of stationary sources and
are generally responsible for the development of regional air quality
plans. In the San Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') is responsible
for stationary source regulation, and it also develops and adopts air
quality management plans to address CAA planning requirements
applicable to that region. Such plans are then submitted to CARB for
adoption and submittal to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP.
Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is charged with evaluation of
each SIP revision submitted by states for compliance with applicable
CAA requirements and with taking action on each submission. The EPA
evaluates SIP submissions and takes action to approve or disapprove
them through notice-and-comment rulemaking published in the Federal
Register. CAA section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally
approve a SIP submission based on a commitment of the State to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but no later than one
year after the date of approval of the SIP submission. Where
appropriate, the EPA may act on separate portions of a SIP submission
in separate rulemaking actions.
Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2
as ``Serious'' or above, such as the San Joaquin Valley area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, must include in their SIPs, among other requirements,
contingency measures consistent with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional controls or measures to
be implemented in the event the area fails to make reasonable further
progress (RFP), meet any applicable milestone, or attain the NAAQS by
the attainment date. Additional information about the requirements for
contingency measures can be found in section II of this document.
B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standards consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western portion of Kern County. The
[[Page 85121]]
San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area stretches over 250 miles from
north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and encompasses over
23,000 square miles. It is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain
range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra
Nevada range to the east.\8\ The population of the San Joaquin Valley
in 2020 was estimated to be more than 4.4 million people and is
projected to increase to nearly 5 million people by 2035.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
\9\ The population estimates and projections include all of Kern
County, not just the portion of Kern County within the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin. See Chapter 2 and table 2-1 of the District's
``2022 Ozone Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Previous EPA Actions Related to Contingency Measures for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
In March 2019, the EPA took final action to approve, or
conditionally approve, certain SIP revisions submitted by CARB to meet
CAA requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley,
California, ozone nonattainment area.\10\ Specifically, the EPA
approved the base year emissions inventory, RFP demonstration, and
motor vehicle emissions budgets, and we conditionally approved the
contingency measure element for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The approval was
conditional because it relied on a commitment by the District to amend
the District's Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) to include
contingency provisions and a commitment by CARB to submit the amended
District rule to the EPA within a year of final conditional approval of
the contingency measure element for the San Joaquin Valley.\11\ We
justified a conditional approval of the contingency measure element,
even though the contingency measure itself would only achieve a small
fraction of the recommended amount of emissions reductions for
contingency measures, on two bases: (1) surplus emissions reductions
anticipated from already-implemented measures in the milestone years
and year after the attainment year and (2) a commitment by the State to
achieve additional emissions reductions by the attainment year in the
San Joaquin Valley that would reduce the chances for failure to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019).
\11\ Id. at 11207.
\12\ 83 FR 61346, at 61357 (November 29, 2018) (proposed
conditional approval), finalized at 84 FR 11198, at 11205-11206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our final conditional approval of the contingency measure element
was the subject of a legal challenge and, in a 2021 Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision in the Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA
case, the Court remanded the conditional approval action back to the
Agency.\13\ In so doing, the Court found that, by taking into account
the emissions reductions from already-implemented measures to find that
the contingency measure would suffice to meet the applicable
requirement, the EPA was circumventing the Court's 2016 holding in Bahr
v. EPA.\14\ The Court also held that the EPA could not avoid the need
for robust contingency measures by assuming that they would not be
needed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937
(9th Cir. 2021).
\14\ Id., at 946. The reference to ``Bahr v. EPA'' is to Bahr v.
EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016). Under the Bahr
holding, contingency measures under CAA section 172(c)(9) must be
designed so as to be implemented prospectively; already-implemented
control measures may not serve as contingency measures even if they
provide emissions reductions beyond those needed for any other CAA
purpose.
\15\ Id. at 947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2022, in light of the Association of Irritated Residents
v. EPA decision, the EPA took final action to withdraw our previous
conditional approval and to partially disapprove the contingency
measure element submitted to address the contingency measure
requirements for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\16\
We did so because we found that, if we did not take into account the
likelihood the District would need contingency measures or surplus
emissions reductions from already implemented measures, then the one
contingency measure that was included in the contingency measure
element would have to shoulder the entire burden of achieving the
recommended amount for contingency measures (if triggered). Moreover,
that one contingency measure would have only achieved a small fraction
of the recommended amount of emissions reductions for contingency
measures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 87 FR 59688 (October 3, 2022).
\17\ Id, at 59690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31, the EPA's
partial disapproval of the contingency measure element triggered
sanctions clocks. More specifically, as explained in our final partial
disapproval action, under 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction in CAA
section 179(b)(2) would be imposed 18 months after the effective date
of the partial disapproval action (the disapproval took effect November
2, 2022), and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1)
would be imposed six months after the offset sanction was imposed,
unless the EPA determined that a subsequent SIP submission corrects the
identified deficiencies before the applicable deadline.\18\ In
addition, the EPA's partial disapproval of the contingency measure SIP
submissions triggered an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the November 2, 2022
effective date, pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), unless we approved a
subsequent SIP submission that corrects the plan deficiencies before
the applicable deadline.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2024, in response to our final partial disapproval, the
State of California adopted and submitted the 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure Plan, which is the subject of this proposed action,
to correct the deficiencies that the EPA identified in the previous
contingency measure SIP submissions that were the basis for the EPA's
October 2022 disapproval. We describe the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan in more detail in sections III and IV of this document and
present our evaluation of the SIP submission in section V of this
document. Based on this proposed conditional approval, in the Rules and
Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are
issuing an interim final determination to stay the application of the
offset sanction and to defer the application of the highway sanction
that were triggered by the EPA's October 2022 partial disapproval.
In addition to the submission of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan, the District has adopted, and CARB has submitted,
revisions to the District's architectural coatings rule (i.e., District
Rule 4601) to include a contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(``Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure''). The EPA approved the
amended architectural coatings rule in December 2022.\20\ The
Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure will, if triggered, remove
the rule's small container exemption (i.e., one liter or less) for
certain types of coatings.\21\ More recently, CARB
[[Page 85122]]
adopted and submitted a contingency measure for the vehicle inspection
and maintenance (``Smog Check'') program. As adopted, the ``Smog Check
Contingency Measure'' would narrow the Smog Check inspection exemption
for newer model year vehicles in certain California nonattainment areas
upon a triggering event for certain NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley.\22\ The EPA recently approved the
Smog Check Contingency Measure as a revision to the California SIP.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 87 FR 78544 (December 22, 2022).
\21\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4601, section 4.3.
\22\ 89 FR 56222 (July 9, 2024).
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our actions approving the Architectural Coatings Contingency
Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure, we indicated that we
were approving the contingency measures as individual contingency
measures but that we were not determining in those actions whether the
State had met the contingency measure SIP requirements under CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the areas to which the contingency
measures apply.\24\ Instead, we indicated that we would take into
account the emissions reductions associated with the Architectural
Coatings Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure
when we take action on the contingency measure element submitted by the
State to demonstrate compliance with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) for a given area. As expected, we are taking into account the
emissions reductions associated with the Architectural Coatings
Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure in this
proposed action on the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, which
was submitted to satisfy the contingency measure SIP requirements under
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 87 FR 57161, at 57164 (September 19, 2022) (proposed
approval of Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure), finalized
at 87 FR 78544; and 89 FR 56222, at 56229-56230 (July 9, 2024)
(final approval of Smog Check Contingency Measure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Contingency Measure Requirements, Guidance, and Legal Precedent
The EPA first provided its views on the CAA's requirements for
ozone plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following guidance
documents: (1) ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990''
(``General Preamble''); \25\ and (2) ``State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990; Supplemental.'' \26\ More recently, in the
Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements, ``2008 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule (SRR),'' the EPA provided further interpretive
guidance on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), referred to as the ``General
Preamble.''
\26\ 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
\27\ 80 FR 12264, 12285-12286 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states required to make an attainment
plan SIP submission must include contingency measures to be implemented
if the area fails to meet RFP (``RFP contingency measures'') or to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (``attainment
contingency measures''). For ozone nonattainment areas classified
Serious or above, CAA section 182(c)(9) further specifies that states
must include contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails
to meet any applicable milestone. An EPA determination that the state
failed to meet an RFP milestone or to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date is referred to as a ``triggering event''
because it triggers the requirement to implement the contingency
measures.
Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control
measures that are ready to be implemented upon a triggering event.\28\
In general, the EPA expects all actions needed to effect full
implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after the EPA
notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP or to attain.\29\ Moreover,
we generally expect the additional emissions reductions from the
contingency measures to be achieved within a year of the triggering
event.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 80 FR 12264, 12285.
\29\ General Preamble 13512, 13543-13544.
\30\ General Preamble, 13511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in
reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP
requirement or to correct the failure to attain. Neither the CAA nor
the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of
emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures must
achieve, but the EPA has traditionally recommended that contingency
measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent to
approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP in the
nonattainment area.\31\ As part of the contingency measure SIP
submission, the EPA expects states to explain the amount of anticipated
emissions reductions that the contingency measures will achieve. In the
``Draft: Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan
Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure
Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter (DRAFT--3/17/23--Public
Review Version)'' (herein referred to as the ``Draft Revised
Contingency Measure Guidance'') \32\ (discussed in section I.B below),
the EPA recommends that, in the event that a state is unable to
identify and adopt contingency measures that will provide for
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, the state
should provide a reasoned justification why the smaller amount of
emissions reductions is appropriate.<SUP>33 34</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 80 FR 12264, 12285. See also General Preamble, 13511.
\32\ EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``DRAFT:
Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions
that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements
for Ozone and Particulate Matter,'' Draft--3/17/2023--Public Review
Version. The Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance is available
at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-qualityimplementation-plans/draft-contingency-measuresguidance">https://www.epa.gov/air-qualityimplementation-plans/draft-contingency-measuresguidance</a>.
\33\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, p. 29.
\34\ We note, the reasoned justification process outlined in the
Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance is intended, first and
foremost, as a means of identifying feasible measures rather than a
justification for achieving less than the recommended emissions
reductions needed for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), the contingency measures adopted as part of a
2008 ozone NAAQS attainment plan must consist of control measures for
the area that are not otherwise required to meet other attainment plan
requirements (e.g., to meet reasonably available control measure
(RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements). By
definition, contingency measures are measures that are over and above
what a state must adopt and impose to provide for RFP and to provide
for attainment by the applicable attainment date.
In addition, to comply with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9),
contingency measures must be both conditional and prospective, i.e.,
measures that go into effect and achieve emission reductions in the
event of a future triggering event, but not before the triggering
event. In the 2016 Bahr v.
[[Page 85123]]
EPA \35\ decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that CAA
section 172(c)(9) does not allow the EPA to approve already-implemented
control measures as contingency measures. In other words, a state must
develop, adopt, and submit one or more contingency measures to be
implemented upon a triggering event, regardless of the extent to which
already-implemented measures would achieve surplus emission reductions
beyond those necessary to meet other applicable CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016). See
also Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827-28 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in section I.C of this document, the recent AIR decision
held that, under the EPA's current guidance, the surplus emissions
reductions from already-implemented measures could not be relied upon
to justify the approval of a contingency measure that would achieve far
less than one year's worth of RFP as sufficient to meet the contingency
measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the
nonattainment area.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937,
946-47 (9th Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
In March 2023, the EPA published a notice of availability
announcing new draft guidance (i.e., the Draft Revised Contingency
Measure Guidance) addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements
of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and provided the opportunity
for public comment.\37\ The principal differences between the draft
revised guidance and existing guidance on contingency measures relate
to the EPA's recommendations concerning the specific amount of emission
reductions that implementation of contingency measures should achieve
and the timing for when the emissions reductions from the contingency
measures should occur. The Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
also provides recommended procedures for developing a demonstration, if
applicable, that the area lacks sufficient feasible contingency
measures to achieve the recommended amount of reductions, which builds
on existing guidance that the state provide a reasoned justification
for why the smaller amount of emissions reductions from contingency
measures is appropriate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 88 FR 17571 (March 23, 2023).
\38\ 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016), at 58067/3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, the
recommended level of emissions reductions that contingency measures
should achieve is one year's worth of ``progress'' as opposed to one
year's worth of RFP (the previous recommended amount of
reductions).\39\ One year's worth of ``progress'' is calculated by
determining the average annual reductions between the base year
emissions inventory and the projected attainment year emissions
inventory, determining what percentage of the base year emissions
inventory this amount represents, and then applying that percentage to
the projected attainment year emissions inventory to determine the
amount of reductions needed to ensure ongoing progress if contingency
measures are triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, p. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the time period within which reductions from
contingency measures should occur, the EPA previously recommended that
contingency measures take effect within 60 days of being triggered and
that the resulting emission reductions generally occur within one year
of the triggering event. Under the Draft Revised Contingency Measure
Guidance, in instances where there are insufficient contingency
measures available to achieve the recommended amount of emissions
reductions within one year of the triggering event, the EPA recommends
that contingency measures that provide reductions within up to two
years of the triggering event could be appropriate to consider toward
achieving the recommended amount of emissions reductions. The Draft
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance does not alter the 60-day
recommendation for the contingency measures to take initial effect.
If, after adequately evaluating additional control measures, the
state is unable to identify contingency measures that would provide
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, the Draft
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance recommends that the state should
provide a reasoned justification (referred to herein as an
``infeasibility demonstration''). This reasoned justification should
explain and document the state's evaluation of all existing and
potential control measures relevant to the appropriate source
categories and pollutants in the nonattainment area and the state's
conclusions regarding whether such measures are feasible.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, CAA
section 172(c)(9) and section 182(c)(9) do not explicitly provide for
consideration of whether specific measures are feasible. However, the
Agency does not read these statutory provisions to require states to
adopt contingency measures that are not feasible.\41\ The statutory
provisions applicable to other nonattainment area plan control measure
requirements, including RACM/RACT (for ozone and PM), best available
control measure (BACM)/best available control technology (BACT) (for
PM), and most stringent measures (MSM) (for PM), allow air agencies to
exclude certain control measures that are deemed unreasonable or
infeasible (depending on the requirement). For example, the MSM
provision in CAA section 188(e) requires plans to include ``the most
stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any
state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be
implemented in the area.'' While the contingency measures provisions do
not include such caveats, the EPA does not conclude that the
contingency measures provisions should be read to require plans to
include infeasible measures. Thus, the EPA anticipates that a
demonstrated lack of feasible measures would be a reasoned
justification for adopting contingency measures that achieve less than
the recommended amount of emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of SIP Submission and Evaluation for Compliance With SIP
Revision Procedural Requirements
A. Summary of SIP Submission
On April 29, 2024, CARB submitted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan as a revision to the California SIP.\42\ The District
adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan on April 25, 2024,
and submitted it to CARB for adoption and submission to EPA as a SIP
revision.\43\ The April 29, 2024 SIP submission includes the 2024 SJV
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan (including appendices), as well as
supporting material including the resolutions of adoption, CARB
evaluation and completeness forms, and evidence of public notice and
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ CARB adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan as
a SIP revision on April 26, 2024, through CARB Executive Order S-24-
2003, and submitted the SIP revision to the EPA electronically on
April 29, 2024, as an attachment to a letter dated April 26, 2024,
from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB to Martha
Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
\43\ See SJVUAPCD Board Resolution 2024-4-11 and letter dated
April 25, 2024, from Jonathan Klassen, Director of Air Quality
Planning and Science, SJVUAPCD to Sylvia Vanderspek, Branch Chief,
Rule Evaluations section, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 85124]]
The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes a general
discussion of contingency measures and related guidance, including the
EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. The Plan also
contains a calculation of emissions equal to one year's worth of
progress, a discussion of the two adopted contingency measures that
apply to this area, namely, the contingency provisions in District Rule
4601 (referred to as the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure)
and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure, and an estimate of
reductions from each adopted contingency measure. The submittal also
includes a commitment to adopt and submit to the EPA, within one year
of the EPA's final conditional approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure Plan, amendments to certain District rules, to
include additional contingency provisions.\44\ These rules are District
Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) (``Architectural Coatings Rule''),
Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products, Plastic Parts
and Products, and Pleasure Crafts) (``Surface Coating of Metal Parts
and Products Rule''), Rule 4604, (Can and Coil Coating Operations)
(``Can and Coil Coatings Rule''), Rule 4653 (Adhesives and Sealants)
(``Adhesives and Sealants Rule''), and Rule 4663 (Organic Solvent
Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal) (``Solvent Cleaning Rule''). We
describe the specific contingency measure provisions that would be
included in amendments to these rules in section IV.D of this document.
The submission also includes infeasibility demonstrations to address
the fact that the total reductions estimated from the two adopted
contingency measures fall short of the recommended emissions reductions
(equivalent to one year's worth of progress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ After the Plan was submitted, the District and CARB
submitted letters clarifying the timeline for adopting and
submitting to the EPA the five additional contingency measures that
they have committed to develop. Letter from Samir Sheikh, Executive
Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S.
Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB and Martha Guzman, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 18, 2024. Letter from
Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Division Chief, Air Quality Planning &
Science Division, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX, dated June 24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Evaluation for Compliance With SIP Revision Procedural Requirements
Under CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l), SIPs and SIP revisions must
be adopted by the State, and the State must provide for reasonable
public notice and hearing prior to adoption. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102,
states must provide at least 30-days' notice of any public hearing to
be held on a proposed SIP revision. States must provide the opportunity
to submit written comments and allow the public the opportunity to
request a public hearing within that period.
The District adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan on
April 25, 2024, through Resolution No. 2024-4-11, following a public
hearing held on the same day. Prior to adoption, the District published
notice of the April 25, 2024 public hearing via an email to members of
a District electronic mailing list and provided 30 days for submission
of written comments. CARB subsequently adopted the 2024 SJV Ozone
Continency Measure Plan as a revision to the SIP on April 26, 2024,
through Executive Order S-24-003. CARB then submitted the 2024 SJV
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan on April 29, 2024, as an attachment to a
transmittal letter dated April 26, 2024. Copies of all of these
documents can be found in the docket for this proposed rule.
Based on the materials provided in the April 29, 2024 SIP
submission, we propose to find that the District and CARB have met the
procedural requirements for adoption and submission of SIPs and SIP
revisions under CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l), and 40 CFR 51.102.
IV. Summary of the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Contingency Measure Plan
The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes a calculation
of one year's worth of progress, an analysis of top source categories
in the emissions inventory, a list of existing contingency measures and
commitments to adopt and submit additional contingency measures, and a
contingency measure feasibility analysis. In this section we describe
each of these components of the plan.
A. One Year's Worth of Progress
Section 3 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan contains
calculations for the contingency measure reduction targets that are
equivalent to one year's worth of progress.\45\ One year's worth of
progress is calculated by determining the average annual reductions
between the base year emissions inventory and the projected attainment
year emissions inventory, determining what percentage of the base year
emissions inventory this amount represents, then applying that
percentage to the projected attainment year emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 6-7. All emissions
inventory data represent summer average emissions, specifically from
the months of May through October.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting emissions reductions targets are shown in table 1.
Table 1--One Year's Worth of Progress Contingency Measure Reduction
Targets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
[Tons per day, summer average emissions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment
Base year year NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................. 2031 4.22 1.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 2, 2024 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.
B. Emissions Inventory Analysis and Contingency Measures
The District reviewed the 2017, 2031, and 2037 baseline summer
average emissions inventories for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC to identify
the principal source categories that contribute to regional emissions
totals and thereby to identify the source categories for which
meaningful emissions reductions from contingency measures might be
achievable.\46\ Its analysis also included an evaluation of select
source categories that comprise less than 1% of the total VOC emissions
inventory.\47\ Year 2017 represents the base year of the most recent
emissions inventory for San Joaquin Valley, 2031 represents the
attainment year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 2037 represents the
attainment year for 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5, 13-18.
\47\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, p.
74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows that emissions from the top ten source categories for
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC constituted approximately 82% and 74% of the
total inventory of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC, respectively, in the San
Joaquin Valley in 2017.\48\ Appendix A to the 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure Plan contains additional tables showing these
emissions categories and their magnitudes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 6.
[[Page 85125]]
Table 2--Top Ten Source Categories of NOX and VOC Emissions, San Joaquin Valley, 2017
[Summer average]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions as a
Ozone precursor Source category Emissions percentage of a total
(tpd) inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................... Heavy Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT) \a\.... 56.65 24.63
Farm Equipment........................ 50.45 21.93
Off Road Equipment.................... 24.01 10.44
Trains................................ 13.12 5.70
Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) \b\... 9.22 4.01
Light Heavy Duty Trucks (LHDT1) \c\... 7.94 3.45
Food and Agricultural Processing...... 7.12 3.09
Medium Duty Trucks (MDT) \d\.......... 6.86 2.98
Light Duty Passenger (LDA)............ 6.47 2.81
Off Road Equipment (PERP) \e\......... 5.87 2.55
-------------------------------------
Total of Top Ten Source Subcategories-- 187.71 81.59
NOX.
VOC............................... Farming Operations \f\................ 93.76 27.93
Consumer Products..................... 25.78 7.68
Other (Waste Disposal) \g\............ 21.54 6.42
Pesticides/Fertilizers \h\............ 20.81 6.20
Recreational Boats.................... 20.37 6.07
Managed Burning and Disposal.......... 16.38 4.88
Off-Road Equipment.................... 14.95 4.45
Food and Agriculture.................. 12.76 3.80
Oil and Gas Production................ 11.46 3.41
Light Duty Passenger (LDA)............ 10.82 3.22
-------------------------------------
Total of Top Ten Source Subcategories-- 248.63 74.06
VOC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ HHDT have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 33,000 pounds.
\b\ MHDT have a GVWR of 14,001 to 33,000 pounds.
\c\ LHDT1 have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 pounds.
\d\ MDT have a GVWR of 5,751 to 8,500 pounds.
\e\ Off Road Equipment (PERP) refers to off-road equipment registered under CARB's Portable Equipment
Registration Program. Owners or operators of portable engines and other types of equipment can register their
units under the CARB Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) in order to operate their
equipment throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.
\f\ Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is associated with livestock husbandry, particularly
silage and dairy cattle waste.
\g\ Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is associated with composting.
\h\ Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is association with agricultural pesticide use.
Source: 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 6.
Based on the emissions inventory information, SJVUAPCD identified
existing and planned future controls for each sector in the
nonattainment area. In this context, existing controls refer to the
limits and requirements for different source categories set forth in
the District, CARB, and EPA rules and regulations. Planned future
controls refer to the commitments to develop and propose control
measures found in District plans \49\ and in CARB's Valley State SIP
Strategy and the 2022 State SIP Strategy.\50\ Next, the District
conducted a search for potential additional controls by source category
that could achieve additional emission reductions that are not already
adopted or implemented.\51\ In accordance with the Draft Contingency
Measures Guidance, the District evaluated the technological and
economic feasibility of the potential measures and whether the
potential measure could be implemented within 60 days of being
triggered and achieve the necessary reductions within two years of
being triggered.\52\ Based on the feasibility of the potential
contingency measures, the District conducted a further evaluation of
specific source categories and contingency measure opportunities.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 3, and
section 5.
\50\ CARB, ``San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State
Strategy for the State Implementation Plan'' (``Valley State SIP
Strategy''), table 7, approved at 85 FR 44192 (July 22, 2020); and
CARB, ``2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan
(adopted September 22, 2022)'' (``2022 State SIP Strategy''),
submitted on February 23, 2023, table 3.
\51\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.1-5.7,
and 5.11, 19-54 and 72-74.
\52\ Id.
\53\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, 74-
89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrently, CARB identified existing and planned future controls
for mobile and area sources that could achieve additional emissions
reductions that are not already adopted or implemented.\54\ CARB then
evaluated the technological and economic feasibility of the potential
measures, and whether the potential measure could be implemented within
60 days of being triggered and achieve the necessary reductions within
two years of being triggered.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.8, 5.9
and 5.10, and appendix B.
\55\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan identifies two already-
adopted contingency measures (i.e., rules that contain contingency
provisions to be triggered in the event of a failure to attain or to
meet an RFP milestone) and five additional contingency measures that
the District has committed to adopt and CARB has committed to submit to
the EPA as a revision to the California SIP. The two existing
contingency measures are described in section IV.C of this document,
and the five additional contingency measures are described in section
IV.D of this document.
C. Adopted Contingency Measures
The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan identifies two existing
contingency measures that have already
[[Page 85126]]
been adopted as revisions to the SIP and submitted to EPA: the
District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and CARB's Smog
Check Contingency Measure. See section I.C of this document for a
description of the two adopted contingency measures. The Plan
calculated the emissions reductions expected from these measures, in
the event that they are triggered. Those estimates are shown in table
3.
Table 3--Ozone Season Emissions Reductions From District and CARB
Contingency Measures
[Ozone season, tpd] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency measure NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architectural Coatings \b\............................. 0.000 0.650
CARB Smog Check \c\.................................... 0.079 0.025
----------------
Total.............................................. 0.079 0.675
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 4.2.
\b\ The District's estimate of emissions reductions from the
Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure (if triggered) represents a
7.5% reduction in area-wide VOC emissions from architectural coatings
in 2031 and takes into account the percentage of VOC emissions
associated with architectural coatings sold in small containers and
the percentage of the small-container emissions associated with the
particular coatings affected by the contingency measure provision. See
SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4601
(Architectural Coatings) April 16, 2020, pages 12-13. These emissions
reductions do not include reductions associated with the District's
commitment to remove the small container exemption for rust
preventative coatings in Rule 4601.
\c\ These emissions reductions account for the first triggering event of
this contingency measure.
As noted in section I.C. of this document, the EPA approved the
District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure as a revision to
the California SIP in 2022.\56\ Upon a triggering event, this
contingency measure would remove the exemption for certain categories
of architectural coatings sold in containers with a volume of one liter
or less (referred to as the small container exemption (SCE)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 87 FR 78544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Smog Check Program is a vehicle inspection and
maintenance program administered by the California Bureau of Automotive
Repair (BAR), that identifies vehicles with faulty emission control
components. Smog Check Program inspections are required biennially as a
part of the vehicle registration process and/or when a vehicle changes
ownership or is registered for the first time in California.\57\
Currently, under California law, vehicles up to eight model years old
(MYO) are exempt from the requirement to pass a biennial smog check
inspection.\58\ The Smog Check Contingency Measure adds a contingency
provision to the existing program, that, within 30 days of a triggering
event, the CARB Executive Officer would direct BAR to amend the
California Smog Check Program's vehicle model-years old (MYO) exemption
from the existing eight or less MYO to seven or less MYO, in the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.\59\ In addition, the California Smog
Check Contingency measure can be triggered a second time in the same
nonattainment area upon a second triggering event.\60\ If triggered a
second time, the Smog Check exemption would be amended from seven or
less MYO to six or less MYO in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area.\61\ The EPA recently approved CARB's Smog Check Contingency
Measure as a revision to the California SIP.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 4.2, 12.
\58\ California Health & Safety Code section 44011(a)(4)(B)(ii).
\59\ The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B,
15. The Smog Check Contingency Measure also applies to other NAAQS
and nonattainment areas.
\60\ The triggering events that would result in the
implementation of Smog Check Contingency Measure relate to multiple
NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley in addition to the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
including the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and multiple PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS. However, because the Smog Check Contingency Measure provides
for a second triggering event, it will still be available for a
triggering event related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS if it is first
triggered by a determination related to one of the other NAAQS.
Given the nature of the contingency measure (reducing the model-year
exemption from eight to seven upon a first triggering event, and
then from seven to six upon a second triggering event), we would
expect the associated emissions reductions from implementation of
the contingency measure to be roughly the same for both triggering
events.
\61\ Id.
\62\ 89 FR 56222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures
The Plan also identifies five additional contingency measures that
the District has committed to adopt and submit to CARB, for submission
to EPA as a revision to the California SIP. Specifically, the District
and CARB have committed to amend the following rules to include
contingency provisions: the Architectural Coatings Rule, Surface
Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil Coatings Rule,
Adhesives and Sealants Rule, and Solvent Cleaning Rule. Expected
emissions reductions from these yet-to-be-adopted contingency measures
have not been quantified and were not included in the Plan; however,
the Plan notes that VOC reductions anticipated through the rule
amendments that the district has committed to adopt are expected to be
small.\63\ No NO<INF>X</INF> reductions would result from these
additional contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committed-to revisions to the District's Architectural Coatings
Rule, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil
Coatings Rule, Adhesives and Sealants Rule, and Solvent Cleaning Rule
are described in section 5.12 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure
Plan and are summarized in this document.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, 74-
89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's Architectural Coatings Rule establishes VOC content
limits for architectural coatings. The District had previously included
a contingency measure in the Architectural Coatings Rule that, if
triggered, would narrow the SCE for certain architectural coatings,
though not for rust preventative coatings. In the potential control
measure analysis developed by the District for the 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure Plan, the District found that the rust preventative
coatings SCE could also be removed as part of the contingency measure.
In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District commits to
amend Rule 4601 to incorporate the removal of the SCE for rust
preventative coatings within the contingency measure provision with
respect to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule
establishes VOC content limits for coatings used in the manufacturing
and fabrication of metal parts and products as well as separate VOC
limits for coatings used in large appliances and metal furniture.
Except for large appliances or metal furniture, the general VOC limits
for baked coatings and for air-dried coatings are 275 grams/liter (g/L)
(i.e., 2.3 pounds/gallon) and 340 g/L (2.8 pounds/gallon),
respectively. The Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule
exempts the stripping of cured coatings, cured adhesives, and cured
inks, except the stripping of such materials from spray application
equipment. In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District
commits to revise the Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule
to include a contingency measure that, if triggered, would remove the
exemption for stripping agents for metal
[[Page 85127]]
parts and products and subject those stripping agents to a limit of 200
grams/liter.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's Can and Coil Coatings Rule applies to can and coil
coating operations and to organic solvent cleaning, storage, and
disposal associated with can and coil coating operations. The Can and
Coil Coatings Rule limits the VOC content of different compliant
coatings and allows the use of non-compliant coatings with an emission
control device to reduce VOC emissions. The rule contains provisions
for organic solvent cleaning, organic solvent storage, disposal
requirements, application methods for coatings, monitoring, and
recordkeeping. The rule establishes a limit of 250 g/L for organic
solvents used for cleaning coating application equipment and sheet
coaters for three-piece cans. In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure
Plan, the District commits to revise the Can and Coil Coatings Rule to
include a contingency measure that, if triggered, would lower the VOC
limit from 250 g/L to 25 g/L for organic solvents used for cleaning
coating application equipment and sheet coaters for three-piece
cans.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's Adhesives and Sealants Rule sets VOC content limits
for adhesive products, sealant products, and associated solvent
cleaning operations, and it applies to any person who supplies, sells,
offers for sale, or applies any adhesive product, sealant product, or
associated solvent, used within the District. The Adhesives and
Sealants Rule contains a limit of 510 g/L for PVC welding adhesives. In
the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District commits to
revise the Adhesive and Sealants Rule to include a contingency measure
that, if triggered, would lower the VOC limit from 510 g/L to 500 g/L
for PVC welding adhesives.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's Solvent Cleaning Rule controls VOC emissions from
organic solvent cleaning outside a degreaser (tank, tray, drum, or
other container) as well as storage and disposal of the solvents. The
Solvent Cleaning Rule has solvent VOC content requirements for general
product cleaning or surface preparation, repair and maintenance
cleaning, and cleaning coating/adhesive application equipment (all 25
grams of VOC per Liter (g-VOC/L)). The Rule also imposes VOC content
requirements for specific other categories (ranging from 100-800 g-VOC/
L) or alternatively requires an equivalent control system with no less
than 90% overall control for the emissions generated and containers for
solvent storage and disposal. Currently, the Solvent Cleaning Rule does
not include a limit for organic solvents used to sterilize food and
manufacturing processing equipment. In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan, the District commits to revise the Solvent Cleaning Rule
to include a contingency measure that, if triggered, would establish a
limit of 200 g/L for organic solvents used for sterilizing food and
manufacturing processing equipment.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis
The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes infeasibility
justifications for providing contingency measures that achieve less
than one year's worth of progress, generally following the approach
that the EPA describes for such analyses in the EPA's Draft Revised
Contingency Measure Guidance. The feasibility analysis for source
categories under District jurisdiction is found in sections 5.1-5.7 of
the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, and further evaluation of
select source categories under SJV District jurisdiction is found in
section 5.12. The feasibility analysis for source categories under
State jurisdiction is found in sections 5.8-5.10 and appendix B. For
certain source categories, such as boilers, steam generators, and
process heaters with total rated heat input greater than five million
British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and commercial charbroiling,
the District relies on and refers to previous analysis that the
District included in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP
Revision.\70\ Lastly, in section 5.11 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan, the District addresses opportunities for transportation
control measures (TCMs) to be adopted as contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ SJVUAPCD, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure State
Implementation Plan Revision, May 18, 2023 (``PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Contingency Measure SIP Revision''). The EPA proposed approval of
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision at 88 FR 87988
(December 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to source categories under District jurisdiction, the
District analyzed the wide range of stationary and area sources for
contingency measure opportunities, which included identifying potential
control measures, analyzing the technological and economic feasibility
of such measures, and assessing whether the measures could be
implemented within 60 days and achieve emission reductions within one
to two years. The District analyzed potential control measures in the
fuel combustion, waste disposal, cleaning and surface coating,
petroleum production and marketing, industrial processes, solvent
evaporation, and miscellaneous processes emissions inventory source
categories. Based on this analysis, the District further analyzed
certain specific categories for contingency measure opportunities. More
specifically, the District analyzed Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal
Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations), Rule 4570 (Confined Animal
Facilities), Architectural Coatings Rule, Surface Coating of Metal
Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil Coating Rule, Rule 4605
(Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations), Adhesives and
Sealants Rule, Organic Solvent Cleaning Rule, Rule 4684 (Polyester
Resin Operations), and Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks).
Through this process, the District identified additional possible
contingency measures, through amendments to Rule 4601 (Architectural
Coatings), Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products,
Plastic Parts and Products, and Pleasure Crafts), Rule 4604 (Can and
Coil Coating Operations), Rule 4653 (Adhesives and Sealants) and Rule
4663 (Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage and Disposal), as noted in
section IV.D of this document. The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure
Plan included commitments to adopt the amendments to these rules, as
described in section III.A of this document. Additionally, the District
and CARB have committed to adopt and submit the amended rules to the
EPA as revisions to the California SIP within one year of the EPA's
final conditional approval of the commitments.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The timing for the adoption and submittal of the amended
rules to the EPA for inclusion in the SIP was clarified by letter,
after submission of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. See
letter from Samir Sheikh, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control
Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S. Cliff, Executive Officer, CARB
and Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June
18, 2024, and letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env., Division Chief,
Air Quality Planning & Science Division, CARB, to Martha Guzman,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the other source categories under District
jurisdiction, the District's analysis found that it was infeasible to
adopt additional contingency measures for these categories. A detailed
accounting of reasons for which new contingency measures in each source
category were determined to be infeasible is contained in sections 5.1
through 5.7, and 5.12 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
[[Page 85128]]
Measure Plan. These reasons include conclusions that further controls
are not technologically or economically feasible, that rules have
recently been amended and owners or operators in affected source
categories are still working to comply with recently adopted rule
changes, that the source category does not lend itself to a rule that
has a trigger mechanism, and that the District is already implementing
the most stringent controls feasible. Additional reasons include that
the rule meets or exceeds federal RACT requirements and that the
rulemaking process, including public process, to develop such a rule
would take longer than two years.
With respect to source categories under State jurisdiction, CARB
stated that opportunities for contingency measures that would achieve
the recommended amount of emission reductions are limited due to the
stringency of their existing mobile source control program and the fact
that the portion of emissions due to federally-regulated sources is
expected to increase in the coming years.\72\ CARB further noted that a
relatively limited portion of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are regulated by
local air districts in California and that additional control measures
to achieve the one year's worth of emission reductions are scarce or
nonexistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pages
7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB stated that if such measures were identified, they would be
adopted to improve air quality and help attain the NAAQS, rather than
held in reserve as contingency measures, and that control measures to
achieve large emission reductions often take longer than two years to
implement--beyond the one- to two-year timeframe for achieving emission
reductions for contingency purposes.\73\ For example, CARB stated that
the three largest NO<INF>X</INF> reduction measures committed to in the
2022 State SIP Strategy rely on accelerated turnover of engines and
trucks and shifting to zero-emission equipment, which is limited by
infrastructure and equipment options.\74\ CARB further stated that a
central difficulty in considering contingency measures is that CARB has
already committed to zero emission standards where feasible and as
expeditiously as possible to fulfill goals established in California
Executive Order N-79-20 for mobile sources ranging from light-duty cars
by 2035 to heavy-duty trucks by 2045.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, page
7.
\74\ CARB, ``2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation
Plan,'' adopted September 22, 2022, Chapter 5 (``State SIP
Measures'').
\75\ Executive Department, State of California, Executive Order
N-79-20, September 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, CARB analyzed all mobile sources under its
authority to identify potential contingency measures using three
criteria: CAA requirements, court decisions, and the EPA's Draft
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.\76\ First, CARB assessed whether
the measure could be implemented within 60 days of a triggering event
and achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions within one to
two years. Second, CARB assessed the technological and economic
feasibility of implementing the measure, particularly within the one-
to two-year timeframe. Third, CARB evaluated whether it could adopt the
measure and secure EPA approval by the September 30, 2024 consent
decree deadline for the EPA to promulgate a PM<INF>2.5</INF>
contingency measures FIP or alternatively, approve PM<INF>2.5</INF>
contingency measure SIP submissions meeting the contingency measure
requirements.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, page
45.
\77\ The consent decree to which CARB is referring is the
consent decree in the Comite[acute] Progreso de Lamont, et al. v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 3:21-cv-
08733-WHA (N.D. Cal.). See 87 FR 71631 (November 23, 2022). With
respect to mobile sources, CARB is relying on the same infeasibility
demonstration in connection with the contingency measure elements
for San Joaquin Valley for both the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and the
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding mobile source contingency measures, CARB described
several challenges that limit the control measure options that would
meet contingency measure requirements. For new engine standards, CARB
stated that engine manufacturers need lead time to ``design, plan,
certify, manufacture, and deploy cleaner engines.'' \78\ Regarding
consumer-related challenges, CARB stated that additional time would be
required for ``procurement implementation and there may be additional
infrastructure needed to meet new requirements.'' \79\ Based on the
time required for implementing such measures, CARB concluded that
measures that require fleet turnover or new engine standards are not
appropriate for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Id.
\79\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pages
45-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to mobile source control measures, CARB noted that
vehicular emissions can be reduced through implementation of TCMs.\80\
CARB stated that county planning and transportation districts, and
local jurisdictions are responsible for identifying, adopting, and
implementing TCMs. Because of timing concerns associated with the
transportation planning process, CARB concluded that TCMs are not
feasible contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.11,
pages 72-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, CARB stated that its regulations are technology-
forcing, which requires time for industry to plan, develop, and
implement new technologies and that it is driving mobile sources to
zero-emissions where feasible to achieve criteria, air toxic, and
climate pollutant goals. Similarly, CARB argued that the technology-
forcing and zero-emission-based nature of its mobile source regulations
reduce or eliminate opportunities for contingency measure emission
reductions. Lastly, CARB stated that its full rulemaking process for
most mobile source measures takes about five years to develop and
adopt, which would not be possible prior to the September 30, 2024
consent decree deadline for the EPA to promulgate a PM<INF>2.5</INF>
contingency measure FIP or approve PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure
SIP submissions meeting the contingency measure requirements.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, page
46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its review of potential contingency measures, CARB
identified certain revisions to the California Smog Check program as
feasible for adoption as a contingency measure, culminating in the
adoption and submission to the EPA of the Smog Check Contingency
Measure. As noted previously, the EPA has approved the Smog Check
Contingency Measure as a revision to the California SIP. The Smog Check
Contingency Measure complements the District contingency measure for
architectural coatings and the commitments to submit additional
contingency measures to the EPA. A detailed accounting of the reasons
CARB cites in determining that additional mobile source contingency
measures are infeasible is contained in appendix B of the 2024 SJV
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, table
51, pages 46-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also evaluated VOC area source emissions categories and
controls for potential contingency measures.\83\ The specific source
categories evaluated by CARB include consumer products, crude oil and
natural gas facilities, petroleum marketing (vehicle refueling and
cargo tanks), portable fuel containers (gas cans), and pesticides. CARB
concluded that there are no
[[Page 85129]]
feasible contingency measures for these sources categories and
summarized the Agency's assessment and rationale in table 9 of the 2024
SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.10.
\84\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 9, pages 69-
71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, based on the adoption of the Architectural Coatings
Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measures, the
commitments to adopt and submit five additional District contingency
measures, and the infeasibility demonstrations, CARB and the District
conclude that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan fulfills the
contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for San
Joaquin Valley.
V. EPA Evaluation
A. One Year's Worth of Progress
As noted previously, neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing
regulations establish a specific level of emission reductions that
implementation of contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA Draft
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance recommends that contingency
measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent to
approximately one year's worth of progress in the nonattainment area.
As part of the attainment plan SIP submission, the EPA expects states
to explain the amount of anticipated emissions reductions that the
contingency measures will achieve. In the event that a state is unable
to identify and adopt contingency measures that will provide for
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, then the EPA
recommends that the state provide a reasoned justification why the
smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate.
We have reviewed the calculations in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan, as summarized in table 1 of this document, and are
proposing to find that the District calculated one year's worth of
progress for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in San
Joaquin Valley in a manner consistent with the EPA's recommendations in
the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. We have also reviewed
the calculations in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan used to
compare the emissions reductions from the Architectural Coatings
Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure with one
year's worth of progress and are proposing to generally find them to be
acceptable, with the exception that the calculation for the
Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure should reflect more recent
emission inventory data for the architectural coatings source
category.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ We are relying on the District's emissions estimate of the
VOC reductions for the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure in
table 4 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan that is shown
for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard because that estimate reflects
updated emissions inventory data for the architectural coatings
source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 presents the estimated emissions reductions as percentages
of one year's worth of progress, consistent with the EPA's Draft
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.
Table 4--EPA Evaluation of District and CARB Contingency Measures as Percentage of One Year's Worth (OYW) of
Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions expected
Pollutant OYW of progress: from contingency % OYW expected to
reductions target (tpd) measures (tpd) be achieved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................... 4.22...................... 0.079 1.88
VOC..................................... 1.87...................... \a\ 0.355 \b\ 18.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimate in table 4 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard
has been substituted for the estimate shown for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard because the former reflects
updated emissions inventory data for the architectural coatings source category.
\b\ Reflects the sum of 0.33 tpd VOC emissions reductions from the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure
and 0.025 tpd VOC emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure.
Source: 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, tables 2, 4, and 5, unless otherwise noted.
As noted in a footnote to table 4 in this document, we have used
the emissions reductions estimates for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard
from 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan in place of the emissions
reductions estimates for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard from the Plan
because the estimates for the 2015 standard reflects updated emissions
inventory data for the architectural coatings source category.
Consequently, our estimates of the emissions from the contingency
measures relative to one year's worth of progress differ from those
contained in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. Nevertheless,
our conclusion is the same as the conclusion drawn by the District and
CARB, namely, that the emissions reductions would provide only a
portion of one year's worth of progress for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>.
Thus, we would expect the State to provide a ``reasoned justification''
to support approval of the contingency measures as meeting the
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the San
Joaquin Valley even though the contingency measures would not provide
for the magnitude of emissions reductions recommended by the EPA. The
District and CARB have included their reasoned justifications in the
form of feasibility analyses in Chapter 5 and appendix B of the 2024
SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. We provide our review of the
feasibility analyses in section V.D of this document.
B. Contingency Measures
As previously discussed, to meet the applicable requirements,
contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures
that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or
failure of the area to meet the relevant NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. In general, we expect all actions needed to effect
full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after the
EPA notifies the state of a failure to meet RFP or to attain. Moreover,
we expect the additional emissions reductions from the contingency
measures to be partially achieved within a year or two of the
triggering event. To satisfy the contingency measure requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), the contingency measures adopted
as
[[Page 85130]]
part of a 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment plan must consist of control
measures for the area that are not otherwise required to meet other
attainment plan requirements (e.g., to meet RACM or RACT requirements).
The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan relies on two adopted
contingency measures: the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure
and the Smog Check Contingency Measure. As noted previously, we have
already approved both contingency measures and, in each instance,
determined that the contingency measures meet the requirements for such
measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 87 FR 78544 (Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure
approval) and 89 FR 5622 (July 9, 2024) (Smog Check Contingency
Measure approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures
In addition to the adopted contingency measures, the 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure Plan includes commitments to adopt and submit
additional contingency measures. We have evaluated the commitments made
by the District to adopt an expansion of the contingency measure in the
Architectural Coatings Rule to remove the SCE for rust preventative
coatings and to adopt new contingency measures in the Surface Coating
of Metal Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil Coatings Rule, Adhesives
and Sealants Rule, and Solvent Cleanings Rule. We have also evaluated
the commitments by the District and CARB to adopt and submit the rule
revisions to the EPA within one year of the EPA's final approval.
We are proposing to find that the measures that the District has
committed to adopt represent additional controls or measures that are
not already implemented and that would provide emissions reductions
beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose, and thus, they may be
relied upon as contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We will
review the specifics of each revised or new contingency measure for
compliance with the requirements for such measures under CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) when the amended rules are adopted and
submitted to the EPA for approval as revisions to the California SIP.
Also, as clarified by the letters submitted by the District and
CARB,\87\ we are proposing to find that the commitments in the Plan to
adopt new or amended contingency measures within one year of a final
conditional approval are the type of commitments to adopt ``specific
enforceable measures by a date certain'' that allow the EPA to propose
a conditional approval of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan
under CAA section 110(k)(4).\88\ In this regard, we note that the
District and CARB have clarified that the District has committed to
transmit the revised rules to CARB in a timely manner such that CARB
can meet its commitment to transmit the revised rules to the EPA as SIP
revisions within one year of the effective date of the final
conditional approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Letter from Samir Sheikh, Executive Director/Air Pollution
Control Officer, SJVUAPCD, to Dr. Steven S. Cliff, Executive
Officer, CARB and Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, dated June 18, 2024. Letter from Michael Benjamin, D. Env.,
Division Chief, Air Quality Planning & Science Division, CARB, to
Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated June 24,
2024.
\88\ CAA section 110(k)(4) provides that the EPA may approve a
SIP revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year
after the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such
conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval if the State
fails to comply with such commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis
The EPA has reviewed the State's infeasibility demonstrations for
not adopting contingency measures beyond the Architectural Coatings
Contingency Measure, Smog Check Contingency Measure, and the five new
or amended contingency measures that the District has committed to
adopt, including both the processes used by the District and CARB and
their assessments specific to a wide range of stationary, area, and
mobile source categories. Notably, in connection with the EPA's
proposed contingency measure FIP for the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA
recently prepared a detailed evaluation of source categories and
measures that we considered as potential additional contingency
measures but determined to be infeasible or otherwise unsuitable for
contingency measures. Although the EPA proposed the FIP to address the
fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) contingency measure
requirement, some of the analysis is relevant for ozone, as
NO<INF>X</INF> was evaluated in the FIP as a PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursor, and is also a precursor for ozone. See ``EPA Source Category
and Control Measure Assessment and Reasoned Justification Technical
Support Document, Proposed Contingency Measures Federal Implementation
Plan for the Fine Particulate Matter Standards for San Joaquin Valley,
California,'' July 2023 (``EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD''). We have
relied on that TSD given its breadth and depth, as well as the
expertise of EPA Region IX staff, to review the District's and CARB's
infeasibility demonstrations with respect to NO<INF>X</INF> measures,
understand where the State's and the EPA's analyses draw largely
similar conclusions, and identify those source categories where the
control measure analyses differ.\89\ As described in the following
paragraphs, the EPA proposes to find that the District's and CARB's
infeasibility demonstrations adequately justify the collection of
contingency measures selected by the State to meet the contingency
measure requirement under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the
San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ While the EPA Reasoned Justification TSD was prepared in
connection with a PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure FIP, the
analysis contained therein is relevant for our review of the 2024
SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan to the extent it addresses
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions sources and controls given that
NO<INF>X</INF> is a precursor for both ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> in
the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of process, the District and CARB identified and evaluated
existing and potential control measures using components of the process
recommended in the EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measures
Guidance.\90\ As described in section IV.E of this proposed rule, for
the wide range of stationary and area sources under its jurisdiction,
the District described its ongoing stationary source regulatory
efforts, identified potential control measures as candidate contingency
measures, and analyzed the technological and/or economic feasibility of
each candidate measure, including the feasibility of implementing such
measures within 60 days and achieving the resulting emission reductions
within one to two years.\91\ The District also provided more in-depth
analysis of potential control measures for ten source categories,
ultimately adopting commitments for new or amended contingency measures
for five source categories and providing a reasoned justification for
not adopting such measures for the other five source categories.\92\ We
are proposing to find that the District employed a reasonable process
to identify and assess the feasibility and suitability of potential
control measures as contingency
[[Page 85131]]
measures for stationary and area sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ EPA's Draft Contingency Measure Guidance, section 4
(``Reasoned Justification for Less Than [One Year's Worth] of
Progress'').
\91\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.1
through 5.7, and 5.11.
\92\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, and
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision (for the
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters >5 MMBtu/hour source
category).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, CARB identified potential mobile source and area source
control measures, assessed whether each candidate measure could be
implemented within 60 days of a triggering event and emission
reductions achieved within one to two years, and then analyzed their
technological and/or economic feasibility.\93\ Regarding timing of
emission reductions from mobile sources, CARB concluded that new engine
standards are not appropriate for contingency measures given the time
needed for manufacturers to design, develop, and deploy cleaner engines
or equipment at scale, especially for zero-emission equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure, section 5.10, and
appendix B, pages 44-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD,\94\ as a
general matter, new mobile source engine or vehicle emission standards
require significant lead time (more than two years) to allow
manufacturers time to retool factories to produce compliant engines or
vehicles. Retrofit or replacement requirements also require significant
lead time to allow owners and operators to manage the process of
retrofitting or replacing old engines or vehicles. Therefore, we agree
with CARB that such mobile source control measures (that require
significant lead time to implement) would not achieve emission
reductions within one to two years of a contingency measure triggering
event. In sum, we are proposing to find that CARB employed a reasonable
process to identify and assess the feasibility and suitability of
potential control measures as contingency measures for mobile sources
in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 141-144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect the District's and CARB's justifications that it is
infeasible to adopt additional contingency measures, the EPA notes that
technological and economic feasibility are generally acceptable
considerations for evaluating the feasibility of additional contingency
measure controls for relevant source categories. Accordingly, we are
proposing to find the infeasibility demonstrations are adequately
justified for the following reasons (as described in the 2024 SJV
Contingency Measure Plan): further controls for specific source
categories are not technologically or economically feasible, the source
category does not lend itself to a rule that has a trigger mechanism,
or the District is already implementing the most stringent controls
possible.
However, the EPA notes that the fact that a particular rule meets
or exceeds federal RACT requirements is not a sufficient justification
for concluding that additional controls for that category are
infeasible. Contingency measures are intended to be measures that
achieve reductions beyond the reductions associated with other
applicable CAA requirements for the nonattainment area. Therefore,
additional controls that exceed what is required to implement RACT
could very well be viable candidates for contingency measures.
Additionally, the length of the rulemaking process is not a valid
consideration for finding a control measure infeasible that would
otherwise be feasible to adopt. We expect states with nonattainment
area contingency measure requirements to proactively identify relevant
candidate measures such that the rulemaking process does not impede
timely development of contingency measures. We are therefore proposing
to find that the District's and CARB's stated reasons of already
meeting or exceeding RACT for the relevant source category, or
expecting a lengthy rulemaking process, are not relevant justifications
for not adopting additional contingency measures. In this instance,
however, neither CARB nor the District found potential contingency
measures infeasible solely because additional controls would exceed the
RACT requirement or because the rulemaking process would take too long.
For each of the stationary and area source categories examined that
relate primarily to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the EPA is proposing to
find that additional control measures cannot feasibly reduce emissions
within one to two years. In the following paragraphs, we describe those
source categories where we agree with the bases presented by the
District. We then discuss those source categories where the basis of
the EPA's conclusion differs from that of the District, even while the
conclusion itself is the same--that the additional control measure
evaluated cannot feasibly reduce emissions within one to two years.
The District's analyses are substantially the same as those of the
EPA for the following source categories: flares (Rule 4311), solid
fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters (Rule 4352),
glass melting furnaces (Rule 4354), internal combustion engines (Rule
4702), stationary gas turbines (Rule 4703), and natural gas-fired, fan
type residential central furnaces (Rule 4905).
We note that the candidate NO<INF>X</INF> control measures
evaluated for internal combustion engines, stationary gas turbines,
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters would require
installation of costly and engineering-intensive devices (e.g., oxyfuel
fired furnaces and natural gas furnaces equipped with selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) for glass melting). As described in the EPA's
Reasoned Justification TSD, while these technologies may be available
and feasible in some contexts, we concluded there that it would be
technologically infeasible for these measures to be implemented and
achieve meaningful emission reductions within one to two years.\95\ We
are therefore proposing to agree with the District's determinations
that such measures are technologically infeasible as contingency
measures at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See, e.g., EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 9-22 (the
EPA's evaluation of contingency measures for boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD does not evaluate
potential contingency measures specifically related to District Rules
4309 and 4352 and, thus, we provide our review and evaluation in this
document.
With respect to sources covered by Rule 4309, the District
considered controls for dryers, dehydrators, and ovens, citing to their
analysis of this source category for the 2022 Ozone Plan.\96\ The
District found that additional controls such as low NO<INF>X</INF>
burners could not feasibly be implemented within the relevant
timeframes for contingency measures for this source category. The
District noted that the time associated with design, planning, and
installation of controls would not be feasible to implement within 60
days of triggering and would exceed the one- to two-year timeline for a
contingency measure to achieve emissions reductions as recommended in
EPA's Draft Contingency Measure Guidance. Further, the District states
that, in certain applications (e.g., dehydrators for onions), the
controls may have an adverse effect on food product quality, which
diminishes the technical feasibility of using such controls until the
technology is further improved.\97\ We have reviewed the District's
infeasibility demonstration and are proposing to agree that additional
emissions reductions for this source category could not feasibly be
achieved within one to two years or are
[[Page 85132]]
not technically feasible in the case of dehydrators for certain
products, and they are therefore not feasible as contingency measures.
The EPA recommends that the District continue to evaluate dryers,
dehydrators, and ovens for opportunities to further reduce
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in developing subsequent plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ SJVUAPCD, 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard,
December 15, 2022 (``2022 Ozone Plan''), submitted as a SIP revision
on February 23, 2023.
\97\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Rule 4352, which covers solid fuel fired boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters, the State's submittal notes that
the District adopted amendments to Rule 4352 in December 2021. The
District's analysis associated with the 2021 amendments to Rule 4352
found that all control alternatives that would further reduce emissions
require technology that had prohibitively high capital costs and
therefore were not cost effective.\98\ Given the economic infeasibility
of additional controls for the sources covered by Rule 4352, we are
proposing to agree with the District's conclusion with respect to Rule
4352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ SJVUAPCD, ``appendix C, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for
Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam
Generators, and Process Heaters,'' December 16, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For several other source categories, the EPA finds that the
NO<INF>X</INF> contingency measure analyses by the District and the EPA
differ in certain respects that warrant further discussion.
Notwithstanding these differences, both the District's analyses and the
EPA's analyses supporting our recent contingency measure FIP proposal
support our proposed conclusion that the measures evaluated are
technologically infeasible because they cannot feasibly reduce
emissions within one to two years. We discuss each of these source
categories in the paragraphs that follow.
With respect to residential water heaters (Rule 4902) and
residential furnaces (Rule 4905), the District evaluated a candidate
contingency measure to adopt electrification requirements (i.e.,
requiring newly purchased furnaces and water heaters to be zero-
emission units) on a more expedited timeline than the state-wide
building electrification measure, to which CARB committed, that would
achieve emission reductions starting in 2030.\99\ The District deemed
this contingency measure option technologically infeasible, citing the
lead time necessary for manufacturers to design and produce electric
units, the need for collaboration with energy and building code
regulators, the desire for consistency with State and local efforts,
the potential for housing cost and affordability impacts, and the
impact on equity considerations for low-income and environmental
justice communities.\100\ While we note that some of these factors do
not necessarily align with the feasibility criteria outlined in the
EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance,\101\ the EPA is
proposing to find that the building electrification contingency measure
option is not feasible because we expect that the measure would not
result in emissions reductions within two years after trigger.\102\ The
EPA also recommends that the District consider developing control
measures or programs that would incentivize the early replacement of
existing gas space and water heaters with electric appliances, as such
actions could significantly reduce emissions from this significant
source category in the longer-term future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 2024 Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pages 52-54.
\100\ For further discussion of these factors, see CARB, ``2022
State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan,'' adopted
September 22, 2022, pp. 101-103 (``Proposed Measures: Residential
and Commercial Buildings'').
\101\ EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, pp. 35-
38.
\102\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 43-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to District Rules 4306 and 4320, which cover oil and
gas production combustion equipment requirements, the District
evaluated numerous control options including electrification of
oilfield steam generators and solar powered oilfield steam generators,
citing its analysis for this source category for the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Contingency Measure SIP Revision.\103\ For each of these options, the
District provided technological and/or economic infeasibility
justifications. The District also evaluated imposing lower emission
limits for boilers and steam generators.\104\ In this evaluation, the
District explained that the EPA has determined that Rule 4306 meets MSM
requirements and that Rule 4320 goes beyond MSM by establishing even
lower emissions limits. The District noted that equipment operators are
already in the process of investing in and installing technology to
meet the recently amended Rule 4320 limits and suggested that the time
needed to plan, prepare for installation, and install control equipment
to meet lower limits would exceed the one- to two-year timeline for a
contingency measure to achieve emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision, pages
44-47.
\104\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision, pages
47-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's evaluation focused on lowering emission limits for
boilers and steam generators, including identification of lower
emission limits adopted by the South Coast AQMD for oilfield steam
generators than those adopted in Rule 4306. While the EPA's evaluation
does not indicate that control requirements required to meet the lower
limits would be technologically infeasible altogether (in light of the
lower limits adopted by South Coast AQMD), we are proposing to
determine that it would be technologically infeasible to meet the lower
limits within the two-year timeframe for contingency measures due to
the likely requirement that affected units would need to install SCR to
meet the lower limits. The District noted that the time associated with
design, planning, and installation of SCR would exceed the one- to two-
year timeline for a contingency measure to achieve emissions
reductions.
The District also included evaluations for boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters that are covered by District Rules 4307
and 4308.\105\ The District's assessments for these rules focus on
economic and technological feasibility, citing dollar per ton cost
effectiveness values for numerous control options and adding
technological feasibility concerns for EMx\TM\ (formerly SCONOx). The
EPA's evaluation for boilers does not provide cost effectiveness values
to suggest that lower emission limits for boilers, steam generators,
and process heaters are economically infeasible. However, as described
in the EPA's evaluation, we are proposing to find that units required
to meet lower limits than those already adopted in Rules 4307 and 4308
would require installation of SCR and that this cannot be feasibly
achieved within the two-year timeframe for contingency measures.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pages 20-22.
\106\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 9-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, the EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD for the
EPA's proposed San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure
FIP focused solely on controls of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>. Thus, unlike source categories that are entirely or
substantially associated with NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the EPA could
not rely on its previous evaluation in EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD
for that FIP action to inform our review of the District's analysis of
VOC emissions sources and controls in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan.
For this proposed action, the EPA reviewed the District's
evaluation of the seven stationary or area source categories under
District jurisdiction and the numerous existing District rules that
apply to sources in those categories
[[Page 85133]]
for potential VOC contingency measures. For most of the rules that were
evaluated, the District concluded that further controls would not be
economically or technologically feasible but identified ten rules in
five source categories for further analysis. With respect to the
sources and rules that the District did not identify for further
analysis, we propose to find that the District's evaluation and
rationale for its conclusion that there are no feasible contingency
measures available, due to the small contribution from these source
categories to the overall emissions inventory, is adequately supported.
Of the ten rules that the District identified for further
analysis,\107\ the District has committed to adopt contingency measures
for five of them, as described in section IV.D of this document. For
the other five rules, the District concluded that there are no feasible
contingency measures to adopt. We evaluate the District's rationale in
the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ The District's evaluation for the ten rules for which the
District concluded further analysis is warranted is found in section
5.12 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Rule 4565, which covers biosolids, animal manure,
and poultry litter operations, the District's analysis concluded that
no technologies were currently available to further achieve emissions
reductions from organic material composting. The District further
concluded that requiring additional controls for small to medium sized
facilities was not cost-effective.\108\ We are proposing to agree that
there are no technologically feasible contingency measures for organic
material composting and that there are no economically feasible
contingency measures for small to medium sized facilities, although we
recommend that the District further evaluate Rule 4565 for
opportunities to further reduce VOC emissions in developing subsequent
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ The District presents its cost-effectiveness estimates for
various Class 1 and Class 2 mitigation measures for medium- and
small-sized facilities on pages 78 and 79 of the 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Rule 4605, which covers aerospace assembly and
component coating operations, and Rule 4684, which covers polyester
resin operations, the District's analysis concluded that additional
emission reductions from these two source categories would be
insignificant, given that the sources under these two rules emit 0.18
tpd of VOC emissions, representing only 0.054 percent of the entire VOC
emissions inventory.\109\ Therefore, the District did not identify
contingency measure opportunities for either of these source
categories. We are proposing to agree with the District's conclusions
with respect to Rules 4605 and 4684, given that the emission reductions
from these two source categories would be insignificant, representing
an insignificant percentage of the VOC emissions inventory.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Aerospace assembly and component coating operations
represent 0.004 percent of the San Joaquin Valley's VOC emissions
inventory, and polyester resin operations represent 0.05 percent of
the inventory. See the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp.
82, 84.
\110\ Based on the District's estimates, we note that the
sources covered by these two rules represent approximately 9.6
percent of OYW of progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Rule 4694, which covers wine fermentation and
storage tanks, the District's analysis concluded that the most
stringent controls are already in place, and additional control
technologies have not been proven at the scale of the wineries found in
the San Joaquin Valley or in the climatic conditions that prevail in
the San Joaquin Valley. Specifically, the District analyzed a published
BACT guideline, which established a 67 percent combined capture and
control efficiency requirement, averaged over the fermentation season
for closed-top wine fermentation tanks with capacities equal to or less
than 30,000 gallons.\111\ This analysis found that the majority of wine
fermentation tanks in the San Joaquin Valley are significantly greater
than 30,000 gallons in capacity, and that winemaking practices are
significantly different in the San Joaquin Valley.\112\ As such, the
District concluded that a contingency measure would be incompatible
with the technologies involved in reducing emissions in this source
category due to the time needed for necessary construction activities
such as engineering, redesigning facilities, procuring materials,
equipment, utilities, scheduling contractors, and installing and
testing the fermentation controls.\113\ We propose to find that the
District's evaluation and rationale for its conclusion that no feasible
contingency measures exist for this source category is adequately
supported because additional control technologies have not been proven
at this time at the scale of the wineries found in the San Joaquin
Valley or in the climatic conditions that prevail in the valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District BACT
Guideline 4.1, available at <a href="https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/BACT-Guideline-4.1.pdf">https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/BACT-Guideline-4.1.pdf</a>.
\112\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 84-89.
\113\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 84-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Rule 4570, which covers confined animal facilities,
the District's analysis concluded that that the District is
implementing the most stringent measures feasible and determined that
further controls of this source category would be technologically
infeasible. The District based this conclusion on the absence of more
stringent requirements that have been achieved in practice anywhere in
the country.\114\ We are proposing to agree with the District's
conclusions with respect to Rule 4570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ 2024 SJV Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 79-80. The District
identified an analogous rule adopted by another air district
(Imperial County APCD) that has a lower applicability threshold for
the ``other cattle'' category when compared to SJVUAPCD Rule 4570.
However, Imperial County APCD indicated that Imperial County APCD
does not have any large ``other cattle'' confined animal facilities
(CAFs) operating in their region and therefore do not have any
facilities that would have to comply with this lower threshold. See
ICAPCD. Rule 217 Large Confined Animal Facilities. (Revised February
9, 2016). Retrieved from: <a href="https://apcd.imperialcounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1RULE217.pdf">https://apcd.imperialcounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1RULE217.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to our evaluation of the District's feasibility analysis
for potential NO<INF>X</INF> contingency measures for sources it
regulates, we have evaluated CARB's feasibility analysis for the
sources it regulates, in part by comparing the bases and conclusions of
the State's analysis against those presented in the EPA's Reasoned
Justification TSD.\115\ Both CARB and the EPA note the importance of
mobile source emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, particularly given
that the large majority of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are from mobile
sources, and describe the breadth of control measures considered by
CARB to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for broader CAA purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley. These include new vehicle and engine emission
standards for both on-road and non-road applications that generally
apply to manufacturers and achieve emission reductions through vehicle
turnover; retrofit or replacement requirements for existing vehicles
and fleets; and inspection and maintenance (I/M) program requirements,
such as the requirements implemented under California's Smog Check
program for light-duty passenger cars and trucks and the requirements
that CARB has started to implement under California's Heavy-Duty I/M
program. We agree that the adopted measures and on-going development of
mobile sources measures by CARB, including zero-emission standards,
further constrain the available opportunities for
[[Page 85134]]
additional emission reductions via contingency measures.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section H (``Mobile
Sources'').
\116\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 139-142. See also,
2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pp. 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to contingency measure requirements, CARB examined
potential controls across the wide range of mobile source categories,
including on-road light-duty passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles;
medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses and transportation
refrigeration units; commercial harbor craft, recreational boats, and
ocean going vessels; off-road industrial, construction, and mining
equipment; airport ground equipment, port and rail operations, and
locomotives; lawn and garden equipment; and space and water heaters. As
potential controls, CARB considered and evaluated pulling forward
compliance dates and/or phase-in requirements; setting more stringent
standards (often atop recently tightened standards) through mechanisms
such as emission standards, emissions caps, thresholds for compliance,
testing frequency, making optional standards required, or percentage of
sales requirements; and removing exemptions and/or compliance options.
In virtually all cases, CARB found that control measures beyond those
already adopted or in development to fulfill commitments (e.g., under
the 2022 State SIP Strategy) were not technologically feasible.\117\ In
all cases (except the adopted Smog Check Contingency Measure), CARB
found that the measures were not technologically feasible as
contingency measures because the lead time to develop, certify, adopt,
and/or implement the measures is too long, and because that the
potential measures could not be implemented within 60 days of a
triggering event and achieve emission reductions within one or two
years of the triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ CARB identified three measures as technologically
feasible. One is the Smog Check Contingency Measure that CARB has
adopted and submitted, and that the EPA has approved. A second was a
different Smog Check measure that would require testing on an annual
basis (rather than the current biennial basis) or require testing on
an annual basis only for high mileage vehicles; however, CARB found
that the compliance burden would disproportionately fall on low-
income populations and disadvantaged communities. 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, p. 47. The third was to
increase the testing frequency under the Heavy-Duty I/M program;
however, CARB found that the compliance burden would
disproportionately fall on small businesses and low-income
populations. 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, p.
49. In the latter two cases, CARB also found that, even if the
measure were technologically feasible, the measures could not be
effectuated within the timeframe necessary for contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed CARB's specific control measure analyses and are
proposing to agree that such potential control measures are not
feasible within the timeframe necessary for contingency measures and,
in many cases, are not technologically feasible to the extent that they
build upon measures currently in development that are already
technology- or market-forcing. The EPA has not identified any engine or
vehicle emission standards for consideration as contingency measures,
which remains consistent with the evaluation presented in the EPA's
Reasoned Justification TSD.\118\ Beyond the wide range of source types
and control approaches examined by CARB, the EPA also examined a
handful of potential additional controls in the EPA's Reasoned
Justification TSD, and our conclusion that they too were not suitable
as contingency measures remains unchanged. Specifically, we have
determined that including expansion of Enhanced I/M requirements to
areas currently subject to ``Basic'' I/M or ``Partial Enhanced'' I/M
requirements in the San Joaquin Valley,\119\ provisions to expand the
applicability of and to add requirements to District Rule 9510
(``Indirect Source Review''),\120\ and additional transportation
control measures \121\ are not suitable as contingency measures.
Therefore, we propose to find that CARB's infeasibility demonstration
adequately justifies the contingency measures selected by CARB for the
San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 138-144.
\119\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section IV.E. In
addition, CARB noted in its comment letter on the EPA's proposed
PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure FIP that, under the I/M measure
evaluated by the EPA, 50% of the vehicles that would be newly
subject to Enhanced I/M would be in disadvantaged communities
whereas only 35% of San Joaquin Valley population live in such
disadvantaged communities. Letter dated September 22, 2023, from
Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB to Martha Guzman,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. In other words, the
compliance burden would disproportionately fall on low-income
populations and disadvantaged communities.
\120\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section IV.B.
\121\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 144-146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB supplemented the NO<INF>X</INF> mobile source control measure
evaluation that CARB provides in the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP, which is included as appendix B of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan, with an evaluation of VOC area source categories that
fall under State jurisdiction.\122\ The area source categories include
Pesticides, Oil and Gas, Consumer Products, Portable Fuel Containers
(Gas Cans), Cargo Tanks and Petroleum Marketing. Based on that
evaluation, CARB explained for each of the source categories why it
would be infeasible to achieve additional emissions reductions from
these source categories within one or two years of triggering. We have
reviewed CARB's evaluation and propose to find that contingency
measures for these area source categories would be technologically
infeasible because they will not achieve emissions reductions within
one or two years of the triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ CARB's evaluation of VOC area sources is found in section
5.10 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Conclusion
Based on the one year's worth of progress for NO<INF>X</INF> and
VOC reductions that would be achieved from adopted contingency measures
that meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9),
supplemented by contingency measures that the District and CARB have
committed to adopt and submit within one year of EPA's final
conditional approval, and their reasoned justification for achieving
less than one year's worth of progress contained in the feasibility
analyses, the EPA proposes to find that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan, adopted rules, and rule commitments together fulfill the
contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the San
Joaquin Valley.
VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
For reasons discussed above, under CAA section 110(4)(4), we are
proposing to conditionally approve the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan as a revision of the California SIP as it pertains to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. We are doing so based on our preliminary
determination that, considered together with the existing approved
contingency measures and the commitments to submit additional
contingency measures, the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan meets
the contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we
preliminarily find that the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan,
including the already adopted contingency measures and commitments,
corrects the deficiencies in the previous contingency measure element
submissions for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that we
partially disapproved in October 2022. Our proposal is conditional
because it relies on commitments by CARB and the District to supplement
the 2024 SJV
[[Page 85135]]
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan through submission of additional
contingency measures within one year of final conditional approval,
should we finalize this action as proposed.
In this same issue of the Federal Register, we are also issuing an
interim final determination, effective upon publication, to stay and
defer sanctions. Specifically, the determination will stay application
of the offset sanction and defer application of the highway sanction
that were triggered by the EPA's October 3, 2022 partial disapproval of
SIP revisions submitted to address the contingency measure requirements
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley.\123\ The
determination to stay and defer sanctions is based upon our proposed
conditional approval action detailed in this document, with respect to
the revised SIP submissions addressing the contingency measure SIP
requirement. Please see the interim final determination document for
further information concerning sanctions and the basis for issuing the
interim final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed action, our
rationale for the proposed action, and any other pertinent matters
related to the issues discussed in this document. We will accept
comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days and will
consider comments before taking final action.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to conditionally
approve a state plan as meeting federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
<bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on communities with Environmental Justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people
should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences
of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
Neither CARB nor the District evaluated EJconsiderations as part of
the SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not
perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action.
Due to the nature of the action being proposed here, this action, if
finalized, is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for
communities with EJ concerns.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 16, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-24706 Filed 10-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 25, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.