Proposed Rule2025-19884
Approval of Clean Air Plans; San Joaquin Valley, California; Contingency Measures for 1997 Ozone Standards
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
November 14, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act") a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of California as meeting the attainment-related contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") in the San Joaquin Valley, California, ozone nonattainment area. The SIP revision is titled "California Smog Check Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan Revision" (Released: September 15, 2023) ("Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP"). The EPA's proposed approval relies on the previously-approved contingency measure for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley and the justifications for not adopting additional contingency measures that provide for the recommended amount of emissions reductions for such measures. Based on the proposed approval, the EPA is also proposing to determine that the State of California has fulfilled the commitment made by the State in connection with a previous approval action to develop, adopt, and submit attainment contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS meeting the requirements of the CAA.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 218 (Friday, November 14, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 218 (Friday, November 14, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51029-51042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19884]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 218 / Friday, November 14, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 51029]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2025-2466; FRL-13043-01-R9]
Approval of Clean Air Plans; San Joaquin Valley, California;
Contingency Measures for 1997 Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') a state implementation
plan (SIP) submission from the State of California as meeting the
attainment-related contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the
San Joaquin Valley, California, ozone nonattainment area. The SIP
revision is titled ``California Smog Check Contingency Measure State
Implementation Plan Revision'' (Released: September 15, 2023) (``Smog
Check Contingency Measure SIP''). The EPA's proposed approval relies on
the previously-approved contingency measure for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
for the San Joaquin Valley and the justifications for not adopting
additional contingency measures that provide for the recommended amount
of emissions reductions for such measures. Based on the proposed
approval, the EPA is also proposing to determine that the State of
California has fulfilled the commitment made by the State in connection
with a previous approval action to develop, adopt, and submit
attainment contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997
ozone NAAQS meeting the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before December 15, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2025-2466 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 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: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#076b66707562696462296b667275664762776629606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="422e233530272c21276c2e23373023022732236c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Ozone Air Pollution and Regulatory Framework
B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
C. Previous EPA Actions Related to Contingency Measures for the
1997 Ozone NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley
II. Contingency Measure Requirements and EPA Guidance
A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
B. Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
III. Evaluation
A. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of SIP
Revisions
B. Evaluation for Compliance With Clean Air Act Contingency
Measure Requirements
IV. Proposed Action
V. Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Ozone Air Pollution and Regulatory Framework
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 and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse health
effects occur following exposure to elevated levels of 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of California refers to reactive organic gases
(ROG) rather than VOC in some of its ozone-related SIP submissions.
As a practical matter, ROG and VOC refer to the same set of chemical
constituents, and for the sake of simplicity, we refer to this set
of gases as VOC in this proposed rulemaking.
\2\ For more information on ozone health effects, 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
promulgates national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS
are concentration levels whose attainment and maintenance the EPA has
determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. In
1979, under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA established primary and
secondary standards for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged
over a 1-hour period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 1997, the EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08
ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period.\4\ The
[[Page 51030]]
EPA set the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standards were set. The EPA determined
that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health,
especially for children and for adults who are active outdoors, and for
individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). Primary standards provide
public health protection, including protecting the health of
``sensitive'' populations such as people with asthma, children, and
the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection,
including protection against decreased visibility and damage to
animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Since the primary and
secondary standards established in 1997 are set at the same level,
we refer to them herein using the singular ``1997 ozone NAAQS'' or
``1997 ozone standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2008, the EPA completed another review of the primary and
secondary ozone standards and lowered the level for both to 0.075 ppm;
\5\ and in October 2015, the EPA further lowered the level of the
standards to 0.070 ppm,\6\ but this action pertains only to the SIP
requirements for the 1997 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
\6\ 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The EPA classifies
ozone nonattainment areas under CAA section 181 according to the
severity of the ozone pollution problem, with classifications ranging
from ``Marginal'' to ``Extreme.'' State planning and emissions control
requirements for ozone are determined, in part, by the nonattainment
area's classification. In April 2004, the EPA designated the San
Joaquin Valley as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard and
classified the area as ``Serious,'' but, in May 2010, the EPA granted
the State's voluntary reclassification of the area from ``Serious'' to
``Extreme,'' with an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2024.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004); 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CAA, states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as
``Serious'' or above, such as the San Joaquin Valley area for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, must revise their SIPs to meet various requirements. Among
the various SIP revision requirements, states must provide contingency
measures to meet the requirements set forth in 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.
The EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS effective April 6, 2015; \8\
however, to comply with anti-backsliding requirements of the Act, areas
designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time that the
1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked, such as San Joaquin Valley, remain
subject to certain requirements based on their classification at the
time of revocation, including requirements related to nonattainment
contingency measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
\9\ 40 CFR 51.1100(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's determination that an area failed to meet an RFP
milestone or to attain by its applicable attainment date triggers the
anti-backsliding requirements related to contingency measures. In
September 2025, EPA made a final determination that the San Joaquin
Valley failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2024
attainment date.\10\ This determination triggered the Smog Check
Contingency Measure, described in section I.C. of this document, in the
San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 90 FR 46065 (September 25, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area
The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
standard consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno,
Tulare, and Kings counties and the western portion of Kern County. The
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.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley 1997 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
\12\ 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 1997
Ozone NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley
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 authority
under the Clean Air Act to establish emissions standards with certain
limitations 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 submission 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 acting 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. Where
appropriate, the EPA may act on separate portions of a SIP submission
in separate rulemaking actions.
To address the SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for San
Joaquin Valley, CARB submitted multiple plans and plan supplements as a
revision to the California SIP. The submissions made during 2007-2011
are detailed in our proposed rulemaking published on September 16,
2011.\13\ In our March 1, 2012 final rule on the submissions for the
1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA approved the
submissions as meeting various SIP requirements, including the
requirement for contingency measures for failure to meet an RFP
milestone (``RFP contingency measures'') under CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9).\14\ However, with respect to the requirement in CAA
section 172(c)(9) for a state to provide contingency measures for
failure to attain (``attainment contingency measures''), the EPA
approved the submissions
[[Page 51031]]
based on a commitment by CARB to develop, adopt and submit by 2020
attainment contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9).\15\ We indicated that, following the State's submission of
these additional contingency measures, the EPA would approve or
disapprove the provisions in accordance with CAA section 110.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 76 FR 57846 (September 16, 2011).
\14\ 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012).
\15\ Id., p. 12670. Also, see 40 CFR
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i).
\16\ 76 FR 57846, at 57864 (September 16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 13, 2023, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency
Measure SIP as a revision to the California SIP. CARB adopted the Smog
Check Contingency Measure SIP to fulfill the commitment made by CARB in
connection with the EPA's approval of the San Joaquin Valley plan for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to the attainment-related contingency
measure SIP requirement and also to provide for a contingency measure
that could be triggered in multiple California nonattainment areas for
different ozone and fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) NAAQS.
The Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP submission includes a
contingency measure that would narrow the exemption for new vehicles
from emissions testing under the Smog Check program from eight model
years old to seven model years old in a given nonattainment area if
triggered by an EPA finding of failure to meet a reasonable further
progress (RFP) milestone or an EPA finding of failure to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date for such area. The SIP
submission also includes estimates of emissions reductions from
implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the relevant
years and nonattainment areas to which the measure applies, CARB's
evaluation of various mobile and area source categories to identify
other feasible contingency measures, and justification for not adopting
additional contingency measures (i.e., other than the Smog Check
Contingency Measure).
In July 2024, EPA approved the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a
stand-alone contingency measure.\17\ In our final rule, we indicated
that we were not making any determination as to whether this individual
contingency measure is sufficient by itself for CARB and the relevant
air district to fully comply with the contingency measure requirements
in any specific nonattainment area or specific NAAQS.\18\ With respect
to San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, we indicated that we
would be taking a separate action on the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP to evaluate whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP fulfills
the attainment-related contingency measure requirements under CAA
section 172(c)(9) for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\19\ Our proposed rulemaking herein is the separate action to
which we referred in our July 2024 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 89 FR 56222 (July 9, 2024).
\18\ Id., p. 56230.
\19\ Id., p. 56227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Contingency Measure Requirements and EPA Guidance
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''); \20\ and (2) ``State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990; Supplemental.'' \21\ In the ``Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2,'' the EPA provided further interpretive guidance on the statutory
SIP requirements that apply to areas designated nonattainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), referred to as the ``General
Preamble''.
\21\ 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
\22\ 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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. Moreover, we
generally expect the additional emissions reductions from the
contingency measures to be achieved within a year of the triggering
event.
The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in
reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP
milestone or to develop a new plan demonstrating attainment of the
NAAQS. Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish
a specific level of emissions reductions that implementation of
contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA traditionally
recommended that contingency measures should provide for emissions
reductions equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed
for RFP in the nonattainment area. 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 81 FR 58010, at 58067 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
In December 2024, the EPA released the ``Guidance on the
Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the
Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and
Particulate Matter (December 3, 2024)'' (``Revised Contingency Measure
Guidance'').\24\ The principal differences between the revised guidance
and previous guidance on contingency measures relate to the EPA's
recommendations concerning the specific amount of emissions reductions
that implementation of contingency measures should achieve and the
timing
[[Page 51032]]
for when the emissions reductions from the contingency measures should
occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The EPA announced the availability of the guidance document
at 89 FR 101602 (December 16, 2024). A copy of the guidance document
itself is available in the docket for this action. The EPA had
previously released a draft of this document, ``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)''
(``Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance''). The EPA published
a notice of availability for the Draft Revised Contingency Measure
Guidance at 88 FR 17571 (March 23, 2023). The Revised Contingency
Measure Guidance that the EPA finalized in December 2024 is
consistent with the guidance set forth in the Draft Revised
Contingency Measure Guidance that the EPA released in March 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous EPA recommendation for the amount of emissions
reductions to achieve from implementation of contingency measures was
one year's worth of RFP, which, for ozone, is 3 percent of baseline
emissions of VOC, and the previous recommendation for time over which
the reductions from contingency measures may occur was one year. The
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance introduces ``one year's worth of
progress'' (``OYW of progress''), a metric intended to be more closely
tied to the emissions reductions required for attainment of the NAAQS,
for determining the amount of emissions reductions that contingency
measures should achieve.
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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See chapter 3 of the Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See chapter 4 of the Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, 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 Revised Contingency Measure Guidance recommends that
the state should provide a reasoned justification (also 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.
As explained in the Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) do not explicitly provide for
consideration of whether specific measures are feasible.\27\ However,
the Agency does not read these statutory provisions to require states
to adopt contingency measures that are not feasible. The statutory
provisions applicable to other nonattainment area plan control measure
requirements, including reasonably available control measures (RACM)/
reasonably available control technology (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 emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, pp. 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the time period within which to achieve reductions,
the Revised Contingency Measure Guidance specifies that it may be
appropriate to allow reductions to occur over two years, if sufficient
reductions cannot be put in place in the first year after the
triggering event. (In either case, contingency measures must take
effect within 60 days of the triggering event.) \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See chapter 5 of the Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Evaluation
A. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submission of SIP Revisions
CAA section 110(a) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable
public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption
and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement,
every SIP submission should include evidence that adequate public
notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided
consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
The EPA previously determined that CARB has fulfilled the applicable
requirements for public notice and public hearing for the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP submission.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 89 FR 56222, at 56229 (July 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Evaluation for Compliance With Clean Air Act Contingency Measure
Requirements
1. Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP
The Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP includes one contingency
measure (the Smog Check Contingency Measure) for the San Joaquin Valley
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As noted previously, the EPA has already
approved the Smog Check Contingency Measure as meeting the applicable
requirements for a valid contingency measure under the CAA and the
EPA's implementation regulations and providing for additional emissions
reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC in the nonattainment areas to
which it applies upon the occurrence of certain triggering events, such
as a determination by the EPA that an area has failed to attain the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id., at 56229-56230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA
recently made a determination that the area failed to attain the NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date,\31\ and CARB is in the process of
implementing the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the area. In the
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, CARB estimates that implementation
of the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the San Joaquin Valley, in the
wake of a determination of failure to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date, would achieve emissions reductions of
approximately 0.112 tons per day (tpd) and 0.056 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF>
and VOC, respectively.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 90 FR 46065 (September 25, 2025). The EPA's determination
of failure to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley
also triggered the District's alternative fee rule (District Rule
3171) that was adopted to comply with the SIP requirements under CAA
sections 182(d)(3) and 185.
\32\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, p. 34. These estimates
reflect summertime conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP also includes estimates of
one year's worth (OYW) of progress for the nonattainment areas and
NAAQS to which the Smog Check Contingency
[[Page 51033]]
Measure applies. The estimates of OYW of progress can be compared to
the emissions reductions estimated for the contingency measures adopted
for a given nonattainment area. The EPA's revised contingency measure
guidance recommends OYW of progress as the amount of emissions
reductions that contingency measures for a given area should achieve to
meet CAA contingency measure SIP requirements.
For the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, CARB estimates
OYW of progress as 7.57 tpd and 2.40 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC,
respectively.\33\ The EPA has independently estimated OYW of progress
for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS based both on the
emissions inventory information in the approved plan for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley and, alternatively, based on more
recent emissions inventory information. Based on the approved plan for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley, the EPA estimates OYW
of progress as 5.0 tpd and 4.1 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC,
respectively.\34\ Using more recent emissions inventory information,
the EPA estimates OYW of progress as 5.3 tpd and 5.4 tpd of
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC, respectively.\35\ Regardless of the calculation
method used to estimate OYW of progress for the San Joaquin Valley for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Smog Check Contingency Measure provides a
small fraction of the recommended amount of emissions reductions to
meet the CAA contingency measure SIP requirement.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id. at 33.
\34\ OYW of progress is based on base year (2002) and attainment
target level emissions estimates as shown in the EPA's proposed
approval published at 76 FR 57846, at 57858 (September 16, 2011) of
the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The
EPA finalized approval of the plan at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012).
\35\ OYW of progress is based emissions estimated using CARB's
CEPAM2019v.1.04 model for the base year (2002) and year 2023
emissions from appendix B of the San Joaquin Valley 2022 Ozone Plan
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, pp. B-8 (NO<INF>X</INF>) and B-13 (VOC).
\36\ In the range of one to two percent of OYW of progress for
both NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously in this document, we described the recommendation in our
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance that if, after adequately
evaluating the availability of additional control measures, the state
is unable to identify contingency measures that would provide
approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, we recommend
that the state should provide a reasoned justification (also 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 to
adopt as contingency measures.
In the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, CARB provides an
infeasibility demonstration for mobile and area sources subject to CARB
jurisdiction to justify why the State has not adopted additional
contingency measures (i.e., in addition to the Smog Check Contingency
Measure) sufficient to achieve one year's worth of progress for, in
this case, the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ CARB, Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, appendix A
(``Infeasibility Analysis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan
The Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP does not include an
infeasibility demonstration for stationary sources. However, since
submission of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, CARB has
submitted the ``Ozone Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan
Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour Ozone Standards (April 25,
2024)'' (``2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan''), which addresses
the contingency measure SIP requirements for the San Joaquin Valley for
the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ CARB submitted the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan
to the EPA on April 29, 2024. The EPA proposed conditional approval
of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS at 89 FR 85119 (October 25, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes the District's
infeasibility demonstration for stationary and area sources under
District jurisdiction,\39\ CARB's expanded infeasibility demonstration
for certain area sources under State jurisdiction,\40\ and the
District's infeasibility demonstration for transportation control
measures.\41\ The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan refers to
CARB's infeasibility demonstration for mobile sources from the Smog
Check Contingency Measure SIP.\42\ We have taken into account the
infeasibility demonstrations included in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan in our evaluation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP with respect to contingency measure SIP requirements for the San
Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Our reliance on the
infeasibility demonstrations included in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan is appropriate even though it was not developed or
submitted to address the contingency measure requirements for the 1997
ozone NAAQS because control strategies for all three ozone NAAQS (the
1997 ozone NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2015 ozone NAAQS)
relate to the same averaging period (8-hour average), the same
precursor emissions (NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC) and the same emissions
sources, the same planning emissions inventories (summertime average
day), and the same types of control measures. In addition, CARB and the
District recommend that the EPA take into consideration the District's
and CARB's 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan and the accompanying
feasibility analyses in determining whether the Smog Check Contingency
Measure SIP fully satisfies the attainment-related contingency measure
requirements for the San Joaquin Valley with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.1-5.7
and 5.12.
\40\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.10.
\41\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.11.
\42\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.8 and
5.9.
\43\ See letter from Ariel Fideldy, Chief, CARB Air Quality
Planning Branch to Michelle Angelich, Acting Director, EPA Region IX
Air and Radiation Division, dated October 16, 2025, and letter from
Sheraz Gill, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVUPACD to Edie
Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, dated October 10, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As relevant to our evaluation of the State's SIP submissions for
compliance with the contingency measure SIP requirements for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes 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 for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and
a contingency measure feasibility analysis. In this section, we
describe each of these components of the plan.
a. 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.\44\ Their analysis also
[[Page 51034]]
included an evaluation of select source categories that comprise less
than one percent of the total VOC emissions inventory.\45\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5, 13-18.
\45\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12, p.
74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 of this document shows that emissions from the top ten
source categories for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC constituted approximately
82 percent and 74 percent of the total inventory of NO<INF>X</INF> and
VOC, respectively, in the San Joaquin Valley in 2017.\46\ Appendix A to
the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan contains additional tables
showing these emissions categories and their magnitudes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 6.
Table 1--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
(tpd) total inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.................................. Heavy Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT) \a\.. 56.65 24.63
Farm Equipment...................... 50.45 21.93
Off Road Equipment.................. 24.01 10.44
Trains.............................. 13.12 5.70
Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) \b\. 9.22 4.01
Light Heavy Duty Trucks (LHDT1) \c\. 7.94 3.45
Food and Agricultural Processing.... 7.12 3.09
Medium Duty Trucks (MDT) \d\........ 6.86 2.98
Light Duty Passenger (LDA).......... 6.47 2.81
Off Road Equipment (PERP) \e\....... 5.87 2.55
------------------------------------
Total of Top Ten Source 187.71 81.59
Subcategories--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 248.63 74.06
Subcategories--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 \47\ and in CARB's Valley State SIP
Strategy and the 2022 State SIP Strategy.\48\ Next, the District
conducted a search for potential additional controls by source category
that could achieve additional emissions reductions that are not already
adopted or implemented.\49\ In accordance with the Draft Revised
Contingency Measures Guidance, the District evaluated the technological
and economic feasibility of the potential measures, whether the
potential measure could be implemented within 60 days of being
triggered, and whether they could achieve the necessary reductions
within two years of being triggered.\50\ Based on the feasibility of
the potential contingency measures, the District conducted a further
evaluation of specific source categories and contingency measure
opportunities.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 3, and
section 5.
\48\ 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.
\49\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.1-5.7,
and 5.11 (pp. 19-54 and 72-74, respectively).
\50\ Id.
\51\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.12 (pp.
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
[[Page 51035]]
implemented.\52\ CARB then evaluated the technological and economic
feasibility of the potential measures, whether the potential measure
could be implemented within 60 days of being triggered, and whether
they could achieve the necessary reductions within two years of being
triggered.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.8, 5.9
and 5.10, and appendix B.
\53\ 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 include the District's Architectural Coatings
Contingency Measure \54\ and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure. The
five contingency measures to which the District has committed to adopt
and CARB has committed to submit to the EPA involve amendments to the
District's 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) (``Organic Solvent Cleaning
Rule''). The Smog Check Contingency Measure applies to the 1997, 2008,
and 2015 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, but the other
contingency measures described in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan relate solely to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), section 4.3.
The EPA approved the District's Architectural Coatings Contingency
Measure as a revision to the California SIP at 87 FR 78544 (December
22, 2022). 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 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 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 commercial charbroiling and such as
boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with total rated heat
input greater than five million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/
hr), the District relies on and refers to a previous analysis that the
District included in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP
Revision.\55\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 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 took final action to
approve the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision at 89
FR 80749 (October 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 emissions 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 Coatings 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 the Architectural Coatings
Rule, the Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule, the Can and
Coil Coatings Rule, the Adhesives and Sealants Rule and the Organic
Solvent Cleaning Rule. 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 Organic Solvent Cleaning Rule are described in section 5.12 of the
2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan. The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency
Measure Plan included commitments to adopt the amendments to these
rules. 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 2024 SJV
Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The timing for the adoption and submission 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 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
[[Page 51036]]
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 emissions 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.\57\ 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 emissions
reductions are scarce or nonexistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pp. 7-
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 emissions reductions often take longer than two years to
implement--beyond the one- to two-year timeframe for achieving
emissions reductions for contingency purposes.\58\ 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.\59\ CARB
further stated that a central difficulty in considering contingency
measures is that CARB has already committed to zero emissions 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.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, p. 7.
\59\ CARB, ``2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation
Plan,'' adopted September 22, 2022, Chapter 5 (``State SIP
Measures'').
\60\ 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.\61\ First, CARB assessed whether
the measure could be implemented within 60 days of a triggering event
and achieve the recommended amount of emissions 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 Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or,
alternatively, approve PM<INF>2.5</INF> contingency measure SIP
submissions meeting the contingency measure requirements.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, p. 45.
\62\ The consent decree to which CARB is referring is the
consent decree in the Comit[eacute] 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.'' \63\ On the
consumer side, CARB stated that additional time would be required for
``procurement implementation and there may be additional infrastructure
needed to meet new requirements.'' \64\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Id.
\64\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, pp.
45-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to mobile source control measures, CARB noted that
vehicular emissions can be reduced through implementation of TCMs.\65\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.11, pp.
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 emissions
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.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, p. 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 for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS and the
commitments to submit additional contingency measures to the EPA for
the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. 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.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, appendix B, table
51, pp. 46-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also evaluated VOC area source emissions categories and
controls for potential contingency measures.\68\ 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 feasible contingency measures for these
source categories and summarized the Agency's assessment and rationale
in table 9 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 5.10.
\69\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 9, pp. 69-
71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, based on the adoption of the Smog Check Contingency Measure
and the infeasibility demonstrations included in the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP and the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure
Plan,
[[Page 51037]]
CARB and the District conclude that the Smog Check Continency Measure
SIP fulfills the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for San Joaquin Valley.
c. EPA Evaluation
The EPA has reviewed the State's infeasibility demonstrations for
not adopting contingency measures beyond the Smog Check Contingency
Measure for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Architectural Coatings
Contingency Measure adopted for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the five new
or amended contingency measures that the District has committed to
adopt for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 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, in 2023 the EPA 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 it 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.\70\ 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 section 172(c)(9)
for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 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 Revised Contingency Measures Guidance.\71\ As
described previously in this proposed rulemaking, 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.\72\ 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 the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for five source categories and
providing a reasoned justification for not adopting such measures for
the other five source categories.\73\ 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 measures for stationary and area sources in the San Joaquin
Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ EPA's Contingency Measure Guidance, section 4
(``Contingency Measures and Reasoned Justification for Less Than
[One Year's Worth] of Progress'').
\72\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, sections 5.1
through 5.7, and 5.11.
\73\ 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 emissions
reductions achieved within one to two years, and then analyzed their
technological and/or economic feasibility.\74\ Regarding timing of
emissions 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure, section 5.10, and
appendix B, pp. 44-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD,\75\ 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 emissions
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 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
[[Page 51038]]
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 emissions reductions within one to two years.\76\ We
are therefore proposing to agree with the District's determinations
that such measures are technologically infeasible as contingency
measures at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 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 their
analysis of this source category for the 2022 Ozone Plan.\77\ 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 Revised 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.\78\ 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 not technically feasible in the
case of dehydrators for certain products, and therefore measures for
this source category are 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 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.
\78\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, p. 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Rule 4352, which covers solid fuel fired boilers,
steam generators, and process heaters, the State's submission 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.\79\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 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 CARB's committed-to
statewide building electrification measure that would achieve emissions
reductions starting in 2030.\80\ 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.\81\ While we note that some of these factors do not
necessarily align with the feasibility criteria outlined in the EPA's
Revised Contingency Measures Guidance,\82\ the EPA is proposing to find
that the building electrification contingency measure option is not
feasible because we expect that the measure would not
[[Page 51039]]
result in emissions reductions within two years after a triggering
event.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 2024 Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 52-54.
\81\ 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'').
\82\ EPA's Revised Contingency Measures Guidance, pp. 37-45.
\83\ 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.\84\ For each of these options, the
District provided technological and/or economic infeasibility
justifications. The District also evaluated imposing lower emissions
limits for boilers and steam generators.\85\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision, pp. 44-
47.
\85\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> Contingency Measure SIP Revision, pp. 47-
49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's evaluation focused on lowering emissions limits for
boilers and steam generators, including identification of lower
emissions 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 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.\86\ The District's assessments for these rules focuses on
economic and technological feasibility, citing dollar-per-ton cost-
effectiveness values for numerous control options and adding
technological feasibility concerns for SCONO<INF>X</INF>/EM<INF>X</INF>
units. The EPA's evaluation for boilers does not provide cost-
effectiveness values to suggest that lower emissions 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.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 20-22.
\87\ 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 rulemaking, the EPA reviewed the District's
evaluation in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan of the seven
stationary or area source categories under District jurisdiction and
the numerous existing District rules that apply to sources in those
categories 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 has adequately supported
its 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.
Of the ten rules that the District identified for further
analysis,\88\ the District has committed to adopt contingency measures
for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for five of them. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 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.\89\ 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 additional
opportunities to further reduce VOC emissions in developing subsequent
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 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
emissions 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.\90\ 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 emissions reductions
from these two source categories would be insignificant, representing
an insignificant percentage of the VOC emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 51040]]
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.\91\ 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 compared with practices elsewhere nationwide.\92\ 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.\93\ We propose to find that the
District's evaluation and rationale for its conclusion of no feasible
contingency measures for this source category is adequately supported
such 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 Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 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>.
\92\ 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, pp. 84-89.
\93\ 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 anywhere in the country that had been achieved
in practice.\94\ We are proposing to agree with the District's
conclusions with respect to Rule 4570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 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 (LCAF) Permits
Required) (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.\95\ 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 emissions
standards, for both on-road and non-road applications, which generally
apply to manufacturers and achieve emissions 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 are starting to be implemented under California's Heavy-Duty I/M
program. We agree that the adopted measures and on-going development of
mobile source measures by CARB, including zero-emissions standards,
further constrain the available opportunities for additional emissions
reductions via contingency measures.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section H (``Mobile
Sources'').
\96\ 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 emissions 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
overall.\97\ In all cases (except the adopted Smog Check Contingency
Measure), CARB found that the measures were not technologically
feasible specifically as contingency measures due to lead time to
develop, certify, adopt, and/or implement the measures and because 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ There were three measures that CARB indicated 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 on-the-books and on-the-way measures that are already
technology- or market-forcing. The EPA has not identified any engine or
vehicle emissions standards for consideration as contingency measures,
which remains consistent with the evaluation presented in the EPA's
Reasoned Justification TSD.\98\ 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 the following are not suitable as contingency measures:
expansion of
[[Page 51041]]
Enhanced I/M requirements to areas currently subject to Basic I/M or
Partial Enhanced I/M requirements in the San Joaquin Valley,\99\
provisions to expand the applicability of and add requirements to
District Rule 9510 (``Indirect Source Review''),\100\ and additional
transportation control measures.\101\ 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 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, pp. 138-144.
\99\ 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's residents 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.
\100\ EPA's Reasoned Justification TSD, section IV.B.
\101\ 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.\102\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ CARB's evaluation of VOC area sources is found in section
5.10 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Conclusion
Based on the feasibility analyses prepared for the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP and the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure SIP,
the District and CARB have committed to adopt and submit five
additional contingency measures to meet the contingency measure
requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS to supplement the two
contingency measures that are already submitted and approved for those
NAAQS (the Smog Check Contingency Measure and the Architectural
Coatings Contingency Measure \103\). For the reasons given above, we
preliminarily find that the infeasibility demonstrations provided in
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and the 2024 SJV Ozone
Contingency Measure SIP support the conclusion that the contingency
measures already adopted and approved plus the contingency measures to
which the District and CARB have committed currently constitute the
entire set of feasible contingency measures for ozone precursor
emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. While the District and CARB have
chosen to adopt them already, or committed to adopt them in the future,
to address the contingency measure requirements for the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS purposes, they are not obligated to adopt them also to
address the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ At the present time, the contingency measure provision in
the District's Architectural Coatings Rule applies only to the 2008
ozone NAAQS but the District has committed to amend the rule to
incorporate the removal of the small container exemption for rust
preventative coatings with respect to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
amend the rule to apply also to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See the 2024
SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, p. 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, because the identified feasible contingency measures
have been selected to address only the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, they
are not available for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which means that the only
feasible contingency measure for the purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
is the Smog Check Contingency Measure. Therefore, based on achieving a
portion of one year's worth of progress for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
reductions from a contingency measure (the Smog Check Contingency
Measure) that meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and the
reasoned justifications contained in the feasibility analyses, the EPA
proposes to find that the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP fulfills
the attainment-related contingency measure SIP requirements for the
1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley.
IV. Proposed Action
For the reasons given in this document, we are proposing to approve
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP with respect to the CAA's
attainment-related contingency measure requirement under CAA section
172(c)(9) for the San Joaquin Valley area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Our
proposed approval relies on the previously-approved contingency measure
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley (i.e., the Smog
Check Contingency Measure) and the justifications from CARB and the
District for not adopting additional contingency measures so as to
provide for the recommended amount of emissions reductions for such
measures. Based on this proposed approval, the EPA is also proposing to
determine that the State of California has fulfilled the commitment
made by the State in connection with a previous approval action to
develop, adopt and submit attainment contingency measures for the San
Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(9).
V. Request for Public Comment
The EPA is soliciting public comments on 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.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
rulemaking merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed rulemaking:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<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
[[Page 51042]]
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
<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 CAA.
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 rulemaking 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).
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: November 3, 2025.
Cheree Peterson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2025-19884 Filed 11-13-25; 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 November 14, 2025.
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.