2024-24706. Conditional Approval; Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard; San Joaquin Valley, California

Table 1—One Year's Worth of Progress Contingency Measure Reduction Targets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

[Tons per day, summer average emissions]

Base year	Attainment year	NO X	VOC
2012	2031	4.22	1.87
Source: Table 2, 2024 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.

B. Emissions Inventory Analysis and Contingency Measures

The District reviewed the 2017, 2031, and 2037 baseline summer average emissions inventories for NO_X and VOC to identify the principal source categories that contribute to regional emissions totals and thereby to identify the source categories for which meaningful emissions reductions from contingency measures might be achievable.^[46] Its analysis also included an evaluation of select source categories that comprise less than 1% of the total VOC emissions inventory.^[47] Year 2017 represents the base year of the most recent emissions inventory for San Joaquin Valley, 2031 represents the attainment year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 2037 represents the attainment year for 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Table 2 shows that emissions from the top ten source categories for NO_X and VOC constituted approximately 82% and 74% of the total inventory of NO_X and VOC, respectively, in the San Joaquin Valley in 2017.^[48] Appendix A to the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan contains additional tables showing these emissions categories and their magnitudes.

( print page 85125)

Table 2—Top Ten Source Categories of NO _X and VOC Emissions, San Joaquin Valley, 2017

[Summer average]

Ozone precursor	Source category	Emissions (tpd)	Emissions as a percentage of a total inventory
NO X	Heavy Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT) a	56.65	24.63
	Farm Equipment	50.45	21.93
	Off Road Equipment	24.01	10.44
	Trains	13.12	5.70
	Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) b	9.22	4.01
	Light Heavy Duty Trucks (LHDT1) c	7.94	3.45
	Food and Agricultural Processing	7.12	3.09
	Medium Duty Trucks (MDT) d	6.86	2.98
	Light Duty Passenger (LDA)	6.47	2.81
	Off Road Equipment (PERP) e	5.87	2.55
	Total of Top Ten Source Subcategories—NO X	187.71	81.59
VOC	Farming Operations f	93.76	27.93
	Consumer Products	25.78	7.68
	Other (Waste Disposal) g	21.54	6.42
	Pesticides/Fertilizers h	20.81	6.20
	Recreational Boats	20.37	6.07
	Managed Burning and Disposal	16.38	4.88
	Off-Road Equipment	14.95	4.45
	Food and Agriculture	12.76	3.80
	Oil and Gas Production	11.46	3.41
	Light Duty Passenger (LDA)	10.82	3.22
	Total of Top Ten Source Subcategories—VOC	248.63	74.06
a  HHDT have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 33,000 pounds.
b  MHDT have a GVWR of 14,001 to 33,000 pounds.
c  LHDT1 have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 pounds.
d  MDT have a GVWR of 5,751 to 8,500 pounds.
e  Off Road Equipment (PERP) refers to off-road equipment registered under CARB's Portable Equipment Registration Program. Owners or operators of portable engines and other types of equipment can register their units under the CARB Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) in order to operate their equipment throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.
f  Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is associated with livestock husbandry, particularly silage and dairy cattle waste.
g  Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is associated with composting.
h  Most of the VOC emissions within this source category is association with agricultural pesticide use.
Source: 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, table 6.

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

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

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

C. Adopted Contingency Measures

The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan identifies two existing contingency measures that have already ( print page 85126) been adopted as revisions to the SIP and submitted to EPA: the District's Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure. See section I.C of this document for a description of the two adopted contingency measures. The Plan calculated the emissions reductions expected from these measures, in the event that they are triggered. Those estimates are shown in table 3.

Table 3—Ozone Season Emissions Reductions From District and CARB Contingency Measures

[Ozone season, tpd] ^a

Contingency measure	NO X	VOC
Architectural Coatings b	0.000	0.650
CARB Smog Check c	0.079	0.025
Total	0.079	0.675
a  2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, section 4.2.
b  The District's estimate of emissions reductions from the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure (if triggered) represents a 7.5% reduction in area-wide VOC emissions from architectural coatings in 2031 and takes into account the percentage of VOC emissions associated with architectural coatings sold in small containers and the percentage of the small-container emissions associated with the particular coatings affected by the contingency measure provision. See SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) April 16, 2020, pages 12-13. These emissions reductions do not include reductions associated with the District's commitment to remove the small container exemption for rust preventative coatings in Rule 4601.
c  These emissions reductions account for the first triggering event of this contingency measure.

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

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

D. Commitments To Adopt Additional Contingency Measures

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

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

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

The District's Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule establishes VOC content limits for coatings used in the manufacturing and fabrication of metal parts and products as well as separate VOC limits for coatings used in large appliances and metal furniture. Except for large appliances or metal furniture, the general VOC limits for baked coatings and for air-dried coatings are 275 grams/liter (g/L) ( i.e., 2.3 pounds/gallon) and 340 g/L (2.8 pounds/gallon), respectively. The Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule exempts the stripping of cured coatings, cured adhesives, and cured inks, except the stripping of such materials from spray application equipment. In the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District commits to revise the Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule to include a contingency measure that, if triggered, would remove the exemption for stripping agents for metal ( print page 85127) parts and products and subject those stripping agents to a limit of 200 grams/liter.^[66]

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

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

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

E. Contingency Measure Feasibility Analysis

The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan includes infeasibility justifications for providing contingency measures that achieve less than one year's worth of progress, generally following the approach that the EPA describes for such analyses in the EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. The feasibility analysis for source categories under District jurisdiction is found in sections 5.1-5.7 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, and further evaluation of select source categories under SJV District jurisdiction is found in section 5.12. The feasibility analysis for source categories under State jurisdiction is found in sections 5.8-5.10 and appendix B. For certain source categories, such as boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with total rated heat input greater than five million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and commercial charbroiling, the District relies on and refers to previous analysis that the District included in the PM_2.5 Contingency Measure SIP Revision.^[70] Lastly, in section 5.11 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, the District addresses opportunities for transportation control measures (TCMs) to be adopted as contingency measures.

With respect to source categories under District jurisdiction, the District analyzed the wide range of stationary and area sources for contingency measure opportunities, which included identifying potential control measures, analyzing the technological and economic feasibility of such measures, and assessing whether the measures could be implemented within 60 days and achieve emission reductions within one to two years. The District analyzed potential control measures in the fuel combustion, waste disposal, cleaning and surface coating, petroleum production and marketing, industrial processes, solvent evaporation, and miscellaneous processes emissions inventory source categories. Based on this analysis, the District further analyzed certain specific categories for contingency measure opportunities. More specifically, the District analyzed Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations), Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), Architectural Coatings Rule, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products Rule, Can and Coil Coating Rule, Rule 4605 (Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations), Adhesives and Sealants Rule, Organic Solvent Cleaning Rule, Rule 4684 (Polyester Resin Operations), and Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks).

Through this process, the District identified additional possible contingency measures, through amendments to Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products, Plastic Parts and Products, and Pleasure Crafts), Rule 4604 (Can and Coil Coating Operations), Rule 4653 (Adhesives and Sealants) and Rule 4663 (Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage and Disposal), as noted in section IV.D of this document. The 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan included commitments to adopt the amendments to these rules, as described in section III.A of this document. Additionally, the District and CARB have committed to adopt and submit the amended rules to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP within one year of the EPA's final conditional approval of the commitments.^[71]

With respect to the other source categories under District jurisdiction, the District's analysis found that it was infeasible to adopt additional contingency measures for these categories. A detailed accounting of reasons for which new contingency measures in each source category were determined to be infeasible is contained in sections 5.1 through 5.7, and 5.12 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency ( print page 85128) Measure Plan. These reasons include conclusions that further controls are not technologically or economically feasible, that rules have recently been amended and owners or operators in affected source categories are still working to comply with recently adopted rule changes, that the source category does not lend itself to a rule that has a trigger mechanism, and that the District is already implementing the most stringent controls feasible. Additional reasons include that the rule meets or exceeds federal RACT requirements and that the rulemaking process, including public process, to develop such a rule would take longer than two years.

With respect to source categories under State jurisdiction, CARB stated that opportunities for contingency measures that would achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions are limited due to the stringency of their existing mobile source control program and the fact that the portion of emissions due to federally-regulated sources is expected to increase in the coming years.^[72] CARB further noted that a relatively limited portion of NO_X emissions are regulated by local air districts in California and that additional control measures to achieve the one year's worth of emission reductions are scarce or nonexistent.

CARB stated that if such measures were identified, they would be adopted to improve air quality and help attain the NAAQS, rather than held in reserve as contingency measures, and that control measures to achieve large emission reductions often take longer than two years to implement—beyond the one- to two-year timeframe for achieving emission reductions for contingency purposes.^[73] For example, CARB stated that the three largest NO_X reduction measures committed to in the 2022 State SIP Strategy rely on accelerated turnover of engines and trucks and shifting to zero-emission equipment, which is limited by infrastructure and equipment options.^[74] CARB further stated that a central difficulty in considering contingency measures is that CARB has already committed to zero emission standards where feasible and as expeditiously as possible to fulfill goals established in California Executive Order N-79-20 for mobile sources ranging from light-duty cars by 2035 to heavy-duty trucks by 2045.^[75]

More specifically, CARB analyzed all mobile sources under its authority to identify potential contingency measures using three criteria: CAA requirements, court decisions, and the EPA's Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance.^[76] First, CARB assessed whether the measure could be implemented within 60 days of a triggering event and achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions within one to two years. Second, CARB assessed the technological and economic feasibility of implementing the measure, particularly within the one- to two-year timeframe. Third, CARB evaluated whether it could adopt the measure and secure EPA approval by the September 30, 2024 consent decree deadline for the EPA to promulgate a PM_2.5 contingency measures FIP or alternatively, approve PM_2.5 contingency measure SIP submissions meeting the contingency measure requirements.^[77]

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

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

Furthermore, CARB stated that its regulations are technology-forcing, which requires time for industry to plan, develop, and implement new technologies and that it is driving mobile sources to zero-emissions where feasible to achieve criteria, air toxic, and climate pollutant goals. Similarly, CARB argued that the technology-forcing and zero-emission-based nature of its mobile source regulations reduce or eliminate opportunities for contingency measure emission reductions. Lastly, CARB stated that its full rulemaking process for most mobile source measures takes about five years to develop and adopt, which would not be possible prior to the September 30, 2024 consent decree deadline for the EPA to promulgate a PM_2.5 contingency measure FIP or approve PM_2.5 contingency measure SIP submissions meeting the contingency measure requirements.^[81]

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

CARB also evaluated VOC area source emissions categories and controls for potential contingency measures.^[83] The specific source categories evaluated by CARB include consumer products, crude oil and natural gas facilities, petroleum marketing (vehicle refueling and cargo tanks), portable fuel containers (gas cans), and pesticides. CARB concluded that there are no ( print page 85129) feasible contingency measures for these sources categories and summarized the Agency's assessment and rationale in table 9 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan.^[84]

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

V. EPA Evaluation

A. One Year's Worth of Progress

As noted previously, neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures must achieve, but the EPA Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance recommends that contingency measures should provide for emission reductions equivalent to approximately one year's worth of progress in the nonattainment area. As part of the attainment plan SIP submission, the EPA expects states to explain the amount of anticipated emissions reductions that the contingency measures will achieve. In the event that a state is unable to identify and adopt contingency measures that will provide for approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions, then the EPA recommends that the state provide a reasoned justification why the smaller amount of emissions reductions is appropriate.

We have reviewed the calculations in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, as summarized in table 1 of this document, and are proposing to find that the District calculated one year's worth of progress for VOC and NO_X for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in San Joaquin Valley in a manner consistent with the EPA's recommendations in the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. We have also reviewed the calculations in the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan used to compare the emissions reductions from the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and the Smog Check Contingency Measure with one year's worth of progress and are proposing to generally find them to be acceptable, with the exception that the calculation for the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure should reflect more recent emission inventory data for the architectural coatings source category.^[85]

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

Table 4—EPA Evaluation of District and CARB Contingency Measures as Percentage of One Year's Worth (OYW) of Progress

Pollutant	OYW of progress: reductions target (tpd)	Reductions expected from contingency measures (tpd)	% OYW expected to be achieved
NO X	4.22	0.079	1.88
VOC	1.87	a  0.355	b  18.98
a  The estimate in table 4 of the 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard has been substituted for the estimate shown for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard because the former reflects updated emissions inventory data for the architectural coatings source category.
b  Reflects the sum of 0.33 tpd VOC emissions reductions from the Architectural Coatings Contingency Measure and 0.025 tpd VOC emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure.
Source: 2024 SJV Ozone Contingency Measure Plan, tables 2, 4, and 5, unless otherwise noted.