
[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 24409-24421]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my10-15]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0467; FRL-9141-8]

 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 
California; San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Coachella 
Valley, and Sacramento Metro 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas; 
Reclassification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA is granting 
requests by the State of California to reclassify the following four 
areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS): The San Joaquin Valley area from 
``serious'' to ``extreme,'' the South Coast Air Basin area from 
``severe-17'' to ``extreme,'' and the Coachella Valley and Sacramento 
Metro areas from ``serious'' to ``severe-15.'' In connection with the 
reclassifications, EPA is setting a deadline of no later than 12 months 
from the effective date of reclassification for submittal of revisions 
to the Sacramento Metro area portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the additional new source review 
(NSR) requirements for ``severe-15'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. 
EPA is deferring the setting of a submittal deadline for certain fee 
rules under section 185 of the CAA. A number of Indian tribes have 
Indian country located within the boundaries of the affected areas. The 
State of California is not approved to administer any CAA programs in 
Indian country, and the relevant Indian tribes have not applied for 
eligibility to administer programs under the CAA for their areas. In 
these circumstances, EPA implements relevant reclassification 
provisions of the CAA in these Indian country areas and is 
reclassifying these areas, except Indian country pertaining to the 
Morongo Band of Mission Indians (``Morongo Tribe'') and the Pechanga 
Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians (``Pechanga Tribe''), in keeping 
with the classifications of nonattainment areas

[[Page 24410]]

within which they are located. EPA is deferring the reclassification of 
Indian country pertaining to the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes pending 
EPA's final decisions on their previously-submitted boundary change 
requests. In connection with this final action, EPA notified the 
affected tribal leaders and consulted with interested tribes.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0467 for 
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., 
confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy materials, 
please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the 
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3227, 
mays.rory@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Deferral of SIP Submittal Deadlines for CAA Section 185 Fee 
Rules
III. Deferral of Reclassification for Morongo Band of Mission 
Indians and Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians
IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On August 27, 2009 (74 FR 43654), we proposed to grant the 
following reclassification requests by the State of California: the San 
Joaquin Valley area from ``serious'' to ``extreme,'' the South Coast 
Air Basin area from ``severe-17'' to ``extreme,'' and the Coachella 
Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from ``serious'' to ``severe-15.''
    We proposed approval of these requests under section 181(b)(3) of 
the CAA, which provides for ``voluntary reclassification'' and states: 
``The Administrator shall grant the request of any State to reclassify 
a nonattainment area in that State in accordance with Table 1 of 
subsection (a) of this section to a higher classification. The 
Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of any 
such request and of action by the Administrator granting the request.'' 
The provision for voluntary reclassification has been brought forward 
as part of the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour 
ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.903(b) (``A State may request a higher 
classification for any reason in accordance with section 181(b)(3) of 
the CAA'') and 40 CFR 51.903(a) Table 1.
    For each of the four areas, we compared a list of the specific 
additional requirements that would be triggered for each area as a 
consequence of our approval of the reclassification requests with the 
revisions to the SIP that the State of California had already 
submitted. For any requirement in any area lacking a submittal from the 
State, we proposed a deadline for submission.
    Based on this evaluation, we proposed to establish a deadline of no 
later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification for 
submittal of revisions to the Coachella Valley portion of the SIP to 
meet the CAA section 185 fee requirements (``section 185 fee rules''). 
EPA also proposed the same deadline for submittal of revisions to the 
Sacramento Metro area portion of the SIP to meet the following 
additional SIP requirements for ``severe-15'' areas: NSR rules 
consistent with this classification (Sacramento Metropolitan Air 
Quality Management District (AQMD), Placer County Air Pollution Control 
District (APCD), and Feather River AQMD only) and section 185 fee rules 
(El Dorado County AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather River AQMD, and 
Yolo-Solano AQMD only). As discussed in section II of this final rule, 
EPA has decided to defer setting a SIP submittal deadline for section 
185 fee rules.
    In our proposed rule, we considered the relevance of the State's 
reclassification requests to reclassification of Indian country \1\ 
located within the four nonattainment areas. We proposed to directly 
administer CAA section 181(b)(3) and reclassify Indian country 
geographically located in the nonattainment areas that are the subject 
of the State's reclassification requests in order to avoid 
inappropriate and infeasible results, consistent with EPA's 
discretionary authority in CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to 
directly administer CAA programs and to protect air quality in Indian 
country through federal implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to: 
``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the 
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through 
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the 
borders of the United States whether within the original or 
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the 
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In so doing, we explained why uniformity of classification 
throughout a nonattainment area is a guiding principle and premise when 
an area is being reclassified. We noted that ground-level ozone 
continues to be a pervasive pollution problem in areas throughout the 
United States and that ozone and precursor pollutants that cause ozone 
can be transported throughout a nonattainment area. Therefore, 
boundaries for nonattainment areas are drawn to encompass both the 
areas that violate the NAAQS as well as nearby contributing areas. For 
certain areas designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
such as those to which this action applies, initial classifications 
occur by operation of law and exactly match the boundaries of the 
respective nonattainment areas. We believe that this approach best 
ensures public health protection from the adverse effects of ozone 
pollution and that, therefore, it is generally counterproductive from 
an air quality and planning perspective to have a disparate 
classification for a land area located within the boundaries of a 
nonattainment area, such as the Indian country contained in the ozone 
nonattainment areas at issue here. Moreover, we noted that violations 
of the 8-hour ozone standard, which are measured and modeled throughout 
each nonattainment area, as well as shared meteorological conditions, 
would dictate the same result. Furthermore, emissions changes in lower-
classified ozone areas could hinder planning efforts to attain the 
NAAQS within the overall area through the application of less stringent 
requirements relative to those that apply in the areas with higher 
ozone classifications.
    With regard to the Indian country at issue in our proposed action, 
EPA also took into account other factors. For example, we proposed that 
the likelihood of attainment by the applicable deadline under the 
current classification is an appropriate consideration for 
reclassifying Indian country within the larger nonattainment areas. If 
EPA believes it is likely that a given ozone nonattainment area will 
not attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, then it 
may be an additional reason why it is appropriate to maintain a uniform 
classification within the nonattainment area and thus to reclassify the 
Indian

[[Page 24411]]

country consistent with the State's request to reclassify the non-
Indian country portion of the area. On the other hand, if EPA believes 
that meeting the original attainment date for the whole nonattainment 
area appears still to be a reasonable possibility, then it conceivably 
might be appropriate for EPA to decline to reclassify Indian country, 
notwithstanding the State's request to reclassify the State portion of 
the area, and notwithstanding the generally weighty considerations that 
support the retention of a single uniformly-classified nonattainment 
area. Such considerations include the pervasive nature of the ozone 
problem, and the transport of ozone and ozone precursors over a wide 
geographic area. Depending on the circumstances, other factors might 
also provide justifications for refraining from reclassifying Indian 
country in conjunction with granting a State's request for voluntary 
reclassification of State areas in the same nonattainment area.
    With respect to the four subject areas, we evaluated the likelihood 
of attainment by the area's existing attainment deadline, based on 
information that is currently available. That evaluation was aided by 
the fact that the State of California has already submitted attainment 
demonstrations for these four areas that are intended to support later 
attainment dates under their requested new, higher classifications. We 
also noted that EPA was not determining which new attainment date is as 
expeditious as practicable for each area, nor whether these attainment 
demonstrations are approvable.
    In light of the considerations we outlined in our proposal and 
reiterated above that support retention of uniformly-classified ozone 
nonattainment areas, and the evidence (in the form of plan submittals 
for the four areas) that provides support for an attainment date beyond 
the date applicable under the current classifications, we proposed to 
reclassify the Indian country within each area \2\ as follows: Areas 
within San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin to ``extreme'', and 
areas within Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro to ``severe-15.'' As 
discussed in section III of this final rule, EPA has decided to defer 
reclassification of Indian country pertaining to the Morongo Tribe and 
the Pechanga Tribe pending EPA's final decisions on their boundary 
change requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule, we 
identified the tribes with Indian country in each of the four 
subject nonattainment areas. In so doing, we inadvertently failed to 
identify two tribes that have Indian country in Coachella Valley: 
The Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Twenty-Nine Palms 
Band of Mission Indians. EPA had invited both tribes to consult with 
EPA regarding prospective EPA action to reclassify Indian country 
within five nonattainment areas in California, including the four 
areas subject to today's action as well as Western Mojave Desert. 
(As noted in footnote 8 of the preamble to the proposed 
rule, EPA plans to take action related to California's 
reclassification request for Western Mojave Desert in a separate 
rulemaking.) Since we inadvertently failed to identify these two 
Tribes as having Indian country in Coachella Valley in section III.B 
of the proposed rule, we contacted them to clarify that our proposal 
to reclassify Indian country areas within Coachella Valley to 
``severe-15'' relates to all Indian country located therein 
notwithstanding the incomplete list of such areas in section III.B 
of the proposal. Neither Tribe has responded to EPA's invitation to 
consult nor expressed either their assent or objection to 
reclassification of their lands in Coachella Valley in response to 
our contacts on this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see our August 27, 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 43654) for 
additional background and a more detailed explanation of our proposed 
action.

II. Deferral of SIP Submittal Deadlines for CAA Section 185 Fee Rules

    In our August 27, 2009 proposed rule, we proposed to set a deadline 
of no later than 12 months from the effective date of the final 
reclassifications for the State of California to submit revisions to 
the SIP to address CAA section 185 fee requirements for certain 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment areas: Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro (El 
Dorado County AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather River AQMD, and Yolo-
Solano AQMD only).
    Upon further consideration, we have decided to defer the setting of 
a deadline for submittal of a SIP revision addressing the section 185 
fee requirements for any area affected by this action. Under CAA 
section 185, the obligation to collect fees could not be triggered 
until after an area fails to attain the NAAQS by its applicable 
attainment date. Assuming that the maximum period for attainment 
represents the date for which attainment is as ``expeditious as 
practicable'' in the areas subject to the new 8-hour classifications 
under today's rulemaking, the obligation to collect fees under any fee 
rule submitted to comply with section 185 could not possibly be due 
until after June 15, 2019 (for Sacramento Metro and Coachella Valley) 
or after June 15, 2024 (for San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast). 
EPA recently issued guidance regarding 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding 
fee programs \3\ but has not yet completed its consideration of the 
relationship between 1-hour and 8-hour fee programs for these areas. 
There is at present no immediate need to set a deadline for submission 
of the 8-hour fees SIP program as we believe that there will be 
sufficient time for EPA to establish a SIP revision deadline for this 
requirement and for the State of California to develop and submit the 
necessary fee rules.\4\ Indeed, in a previous EPA action granting a 
request for voluntary reclassification of the Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria (Texas) 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to ``severe-15'', EPA 
also deferred setting a deadline for the section 185 fee SIP 
submission. See 73 FR 56983 (October 1, 2008), especially footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, ``Guidance on Developing Fee 
Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone 
NAAQS,'' January 5, 2010.
    \4\ Notwithstanding our decision to defer setting a SIP revision 
deadline for section 185 fee rules, we note that, upon 
reclassification, the requirement to submit SIP revisions meeting 
the requirements of CAA section 185 will apply to each of the four 
subject areas of this action by virtue of being classified as 
``severe-15'' or ``extreme'' for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Deferral of Reclassification for Morongo Band of Mission Indians 
and Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians

    As described in section I (``Proposed Action'') above, in our 
August 27, 2009 proposed rule, we proposed to directly administer CAA 
section 181(b)(3) and reclassify Indian country within the four subject 
areas in keeping with the State's reclassification requests for the 
surrounding non-Indian country lands and consistent with EPA's 
discretionary authority in CAA section 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to directly 
administer CAA programs and protect air quality in Indian country 
through federal implementation. For the South Coast Air Basin 
nonattainment area, we named seven tribes whose Indian country would be 
reclassified to ``extreme'' for 8-hour ozone.
    Two of these tribes, the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes, submitted 
comments on our proposed action in which they objected to being 
reclassified to ``extreme.'' (See section IV (``Public Comments and EPA 
Responses'') below.) In their comment letters, the Tribes reiterated 
their requests from May 29, 2009 and June 23, 2009, respectively, for 
boundary changes to establish separate nonattainment areas or, in the 
alternative, to extend the boundaries of adjacent, lower-classified 
nonattainment areas to include the Tribes' Indian country. We refer to 
these requests herein as ``boundary change'' requests. The Tribes' 
comment letters also provided substantive analyses to

[[Page 24412]]

support their objections to reclassification that largely mirror their 
boundary change requests. In both cases, the Tribes specifically 
request that no change be made to the classification of their 
respective Indian country located within the South Coast Air Basin 
pending EPA's final decisions regarding the Tribes' boundary change 
requests.
    Upon consideration of these comments, we have decided to defer the 
reclassification of the Indian country pertaining to the Morongo and 
Pechanga Tribes within the South Coast Air Basin (``the Morongo and 
Pechanga Reservations'') to ``extreme'' for the 8-hour ozone standard, 
pending our final decisions on the Tribes' boundary change requests to 
avoid any inconsistency that might result from reclassification of the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations and decisions addressing the Tribes' 
boundary change requests. We believe that this deferral will avoid 
confounding our further consideration of the Tribes' boundary change 
requests.
    If we grant a boundary change for either Tribe, we will specify the 
consequence of such action in a separate rulemaking on the designation 
and classification of that Tribe's Reservation. If we deny a boundary 
change request for either Tribe, we will take final action on our 
August 27, 2009 proposal to reclassify that Tribe's Reservation to 
``extreme'', consistent with the rest of the nonattainment area, after 
due consideration of the Tribe's submitted comments. Until those 
separate actions are finalized, the Indian country of the Morongo and 
Pechanga Tribes in the South Coast Air Basin area will retain a 
classification of ``severe-17'' for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    This deferral of our decisions on reclassification is limited in 
scope to the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, and in time only until 
EPA finalizes our decisions on these Tribes' boundary change requests. 
We are finalizing the reclassification of all other Indian country in 
the four subject areas to higher classifications in keeping with the 
State's reclassification requests, including the five other Tribes we 
listed in our proposed rule as having Indian country within the South 
Coast Air Basin. (See section V (``Final Action'') below.)

IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The publication of EPA's proposed rule on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 
43654) started a public comment period that ended on September 28, 
2009. During this period, we received a comment letter from the Morongo 
Tribe, and an anonymous comment letter. We also accepted a comment 
letter received from the Pechanga Tribe on October 6, 2009, after the 
comment period had closed. In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize 
the comments from the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes and the anonymous 
commenter, and provide our responses.
    Comment #1: The Morongo Tribe, in its comments, highlights its May 
29, 2009 request to EPA (and accompanying rationale and documentation) 
for the establishment of a separate nonattainment area for the Morongo 
Reservation or, in the alternative, for a boundary change to extend the 
western boundary of the Coachella Valley nonattainment area to include 
the Morongo Reservation. With respect to the proposed reclassification 
of Indian country in the South Coast Air Basin, which includes the 
Morongo Reservation, to ``extreme'' for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 
Morongo Tribe objects to our proposal to reclassify the Morongo 
Reservation in the same manner as the South Coast Air Basin. The Tribe 
argues that the Morongo Reservation should be treated as its own 
nonattainment area or, in the alternative, should be redesignated as 
part of the Coachella Valley nonattainment area, and thus retain its 
existing classification.
    The Pechanga Tribe similarly objects to the reclassification of the 
Pechanga Reservation to ``extreme,'' consistent with the 
reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area. Like 
the Morongo Tribe, the Pechanga Tribe points to its June 23, 2009 
request to EPA (and accompanying rationale and documentation) for the 
establishment of a separate nonattainment area for the Pechanga 
Reservation or, in the alternative, for a boundary change to extend the 
northern boundary of the San Diego Air Basin nonattainment area to 
include the entirety of the Pechanga Reservation.
    The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes believe that the factors used for 
initial area designations and for subsequent reclassifications of those 
areas should be the same. Specifically, the Tribes point to EPA's 
December 2008 guidance for area designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone 
NAAQS \5\ as the appropriate guidance to apply in evaluating whether to 
include the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations in the reclassification 
of the South Coast Air Basin to ``extreme.'' The Morongo Tribe asserts 
that EPA's failure to use the December 2008 guidance in evaluating 
whether to include the Morongo Reservation in the reclassification 
action appears to be an arbitrary and capricious exercise of EPA's 
authority. The Pechanga Tribe asserts that EPA's failure to use that 
guidance in evaluating whether to include the Pechanga Reservation in 
the reclassification action ignores tribal interests. The Tribes 
contend that the December 2008 guidance provides the factors \6\ that 
EPA should have used for the proposed action with respect to the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations. They also include detailed 
evaluations of the application of the factors from the December 2008 
guidance to their areas, as suggested by the 2008 guidance for 
determining nonattainment area boundaries in designations for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) for the 2008 Revised Ozone 
NAAQS.
    \6\ See Attachment 2 of the memorandum from Robert J. Myers, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, ``Area Designations for 
the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' 
December 4, 2008. Attachment 2 is entitled, ``Factors EPA Plans to 
Consider in Determining Nonattainment Area Boundaries in 
Designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.''
    \7\ EPA is in the process of reconsidering the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. As part of this process, EPA has proposed a revised ozone 
NAAQS (75 FR 2938, January 19, 2010) and extended the deadline for 
promulgating designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (75 FR 2936, 
January 19, 2010). Depending on the outcome of this reconsideration, 
we may issue new guidance for determining ozone nonattainment area 
boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these evaluations, the Tribes conclude that consideration 
of the factors from the December 2008 guidance supports a decision not 
to reclassify the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations along with the 
South Coast Air Basin, but rather to redesignate the Reservations as 
separate nonattainment areas and to retain each Reservation's current 
classification.
    Response #1: We disagree that the EPA guidance on initial area 
designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides the factors we must use 
in evaluating whether to reclassify Indian country located within a 
nonattainment area for which a State has voluntarily requested 
reclassification. That guidance is intended to provide a consistent set 
of principles to apply in identifying the initial boundaries of 
nonattainment areas during the designations process. In contrast, once 
an area's initial boundary is established, the retention of a single 
uniformly-classified area becomes a guiding principle and premise in 
determining whether to reclassify Indian country located within the 
area in light of a State's voluntary request for such a 
reclassification of non-Indian country lands.

[[Page 24413]]

    We do believe, however, that the December 2008 guidance is 
appropriate for use in supporting requests for boundary changes, such 
as the requests submitted by the Morongo Tribe on May 29, 2009 and by 
the Pechanga Tribe on June 23, 2009.\8\ As described in section III of 
this final rule, we have decided to defer reclassification of the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations pending our final decisions on their 
boundary change requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's December 2008 guidance states that the factors, while 
generally comprehensive, are not intended to be exhaustive. States 
and tribes may submit additional information they believe is 
relevant for EPA to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge the Tribe's hypothesis that ozone nonattainment 
areas may be inherently defined by a single classification as well as a 
boundary and that retaining the existing classification of the Morongo 
and Pechanga Reservations would have the effect of creating new ozone 
nonattainment areas. Under this hypothesis, the application of EPA's 
December 2008 guidance would be appropriate in evaluating whether to 
reclassify Indian country consistent with the State's requests for 
reclassification of non-Indian country. However, use of the guidance in 
this way is indistinguishable from reconsidering the boundaries of the 
nonattainment areas themselves, and reconsideration of the boundaries 
is an action that we explicitly stated we would not be undertaking in 
the reclassification action. See footnote 13 on page 43660 of the 
preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR 43654). We will, however, consider 
the Tribes' nine-factor analyses in detail in our consideration of 
their boundary change requests.
    With respect to the factors that we considered in evaluating the 
appropriateness of reclassification of Indian country in our proposed 
rule, we provided a number of reasons supporting our use of the guiding 
principle and premise of uniformity of classification when an area is 
being reclassified (see pages 43659 and 43660). In addition, we also 
identified certain circumstances when it might be appropriate to defer 
reclassification of Indian country, notwithstanding the State's request 
to reclassify the State portion of the area, such as where an area is 
likely to attain the standard by the attainment date under the existing 
classification. Thus, other considerations could outweigh the guiding 
principle and premise of uniformity of classification. Upon 
consideration of the circumstances in each area, however, we concluded 
that no such considerations exist in this instance in any of the four 
subject areas. Therefore, with the exception of the Morongo and 
Pechanga Reservations for which are deferring final action, we are 
taking final action today to reclassify the Indian country in the four 
subject nonattainment areas to higher classifications consistent with 
the State's reclassification requests for these areas.
    Comment #2: The Morongo Tribe asserts that the State of California 
has no jurisdiction to redesignate or reclassify the Morongo 
Reservation; that, consequently, California's requests for 
reclassification have no legal import to the Reservation and cannot 
serve as the legal basis for the redesignation or reclassification of 
tribal lands.
    Response #2: We agree that the State is not authorized to implement 
CAA programs in Indian country. The State's requests for 
reclassification of the four ozone nonattainment areas was the impetus 
for our proposed action, but did not form the legal basis for our 
proposed action with respect to Indian country contained therein. Under 
CAA section 181(b)(3), EPA must grant the requests of the State to 
reclassify the non-tribal lands in the nonattainment areas. The 
question then becomes what EPA's action should be with regard to the 
Indian country contained within these areas. In the preamble to our 
proposed rule, we described the legal authority we have relied upon to 
reclassify Indian country in the four subject areas as follows:

    Typically, states are not approved to administer programs under 
the CAA in Indian country, and California has not been approved by 
EPA to administer any CAA programs in Indian country. CAA actions in 
Indian country would thus generally be taken either by EPA, or by an 
eligible Indian tribe itself under an EPA-approved program. In this 
instance, none of the affected tribes has applied under CAA section 
301(d) for treatment-in-a-similar-manner-as-a-state for purposes of 
reclassification requests under section 181(b)(3), and none operates 
any relevant EPA-approved CAA regulatory program (e.g., a tribal 
implementation plan). In addition, the CAA does not require Indian 
tribes to develop and seek approval of air programs, and--pursuant 
to our authority in CAA section 301(d)--EPA has interpreted relevant 
CAA requirements for submission of air programs as not applying to 
tribes. See 40 CFR section 49.4. In these circumstances, EPA is the 
appropriate entity to administer relevant CAA programs in Indian 
country. EPA is proposing to directly administer CAA section 
181(b)(3) and reclassify Indian country geographically located in 
the nonattainment areas that are the subject of the State's 
reclassification request, consistent with EPA's discretionary 
authority in CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to directly 
administer CAA programs and protect air quality in Indian country 
through federal implementation. Section 301(a) authorizes the 
Administrator `to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to 
carry out his functions under the [the Act.]' Further, section 
301(d) provides:
    In any case in which the Administrator determines that the 
treatment of Indian tribes as identical to States is inappropriate 
or administratively infeasible, the Administrator may provide, by 
regulation, other means by which the Administrator will directly 
administer such provision so as to achieve the appropriate purpose.

While tribes may choose to apply for eligibility to adopt 
implementation plans and seek reclassification of their areas in a 
manner similar to states, tribes need not do so.''

    See 74 FR 43654, at 43659 (August 27, 2009).
    In today's action, we reaffirm the jurisdictional basis for EPA's 
authority to decide whether or not to reclassify Indian country in 
ozone nonattainment areas in keeping with a State's voluntary 
reclassification request, as per CAA section 181(b)(3). As noted in 
section III of this final rule, we have decided to defer 
reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations pending our 
final decisions on their boundary change requests to avoid confounding 
our further consideration of the Tribes' boundary change requests. For 
all other Indian country located within the four subject nonattainment 
areas, under the authorities cited above, we are taking final action 
today to reclassify such Indian country consistent with the State's 
reclassification requests.
    Comment #3: The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes assert that including 
the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations in the reclassification of the 
South Coast Air Basin to ``extreme'' will negatively impact the Tribe's 
efforts to develop a tribal air permit program and to facilitate 
economic development on the Reservation. The Pechanga Tribe believes 
that including the Pechanga Reservation in the reclassification of the 
South Coast Air Basin to ``extreme'' for the 8-hour ozone standard 
would reduce the applicable ``major source'' threshold from 25 tons per 
year, to 10 tons per year, of VOC or NOX. The Morongo Tribe 
states that the reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin to 
``extreme'' would further cement the 10 tons per year threshold that 
began to apply as of the 2003 boundary change that brought the Morongo 
Reservation inside the South Coast Air Basin. This 10 tons per year 
threshold would, in the Tribes' view, prevent the implementation of a 
meaningful minor source permitting program, increase the number of 
facilities potentially subject to ``major

[[Page 24414]]

source'' new source review with a concomitant increase in the use and 
cost of tribal staff and facility resources, and increase the number of 
future facilities subject to title V Federal operating permit 
requirements.
    Response #3: This comment refers specifically to major source 
thresholds in the South Coast Air Basin, but calls into question the 
effect of reclassification on major source thresholds for NSR and Title 
V purposes in Indian country within each of the four subject 
nonattainment areas. We disagree with the assertion that 
reclassification of Indian country in the South Coast Air Basin would 
change the applicable major source threshold for NSR or Title V. 
Indeed, these thresholds will not change in any of the four subject 
areas. As explained in detail on page 43661 of the preamble to the 
proposed rule, the applicable major source thresholds for NSR and Title 
V would not change due to reclassification because the thresholds for 
the purposes of NSR and title V that had applied by virtue of the 
areas' classifications under the 1-hour ozone standard continue to 
apply as anti-backsliding measures under the 8-hour ozone standard, and 
the new 8-hour ozone classification for each of the four subject areas, 
as reclassified, would be the same as each area's corresponding 1-hour 
ozone classification.
    With respect to Indian country within the South Coast Air Basin, 
including the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, and within San Joaquin 
Valley, this means that the applicable major source threshold for NSR 
and Title V purposes is already 10 tons per year for VOC or 
NOX, with or without reclassification to ``extreme'' for 8-
hour ozone, because the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin 
Valley are already ``extreme'' for the 1-hour ozone standard. For 
Indian country within Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro, this means 
that the applicable major source threshold for NSR and Title V purposes 
is already 25 tons per year for VOC or NOX. Thus, to the 
extent that a change in NSR major source threshold might affect 
economic development prospects of any Tribe in one of the four subject 
nonattainment areas, today's action would have no such effect since it 
does not change the NSR major source threshold for any Tribe.
    As noted previously, we are deferring reclassification of the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, but for the reasons provided above, 
neither reclassification to ``extreme'' nor deferral of 
reclassification would affect the applicable major source threshold for 
NSR and Title V purposes within the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations. 
The applicable major source threshold is already 10 tons per year of 
VOC or NOX based on the classification of the South Coast 
Air Basin under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Comment #4: The Pechanga Tribe states that, for existing and future 
facilities subject to nonattainment NSR, there is no system in place 
for facilities on tribal lands to obtain emission reduction credits. As 
such, these facilities, including those that are Native American-owned, 
would be at a disadvantage relative to facilities located outside of 
Indian country.
    Response #4: In our Indian country NSR proposal (71 FR 48696, 8/21/
2006) we noted that ``[d]ue to the limited number of sources in Indian 
country, offsets are generally not available. We have proposed options 
for addressing the lack of availability of offsets in Indian country.'' 
However, for reasons given above in our response to comment 3, 
reclassification of Indian country within the four subject 
nonattainment areas would not affect the offset requirement that 
emission reduction credits (ERCs) are commonly used to meet. That is, 
since applicable NSR requirements, including the major source threshold 
definition and offset requirements, in the four subject areas are based 
on the areas' classifications for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the new 
8-hour ozone classification for each of the four subject areas, as 
reclassified, would be the same as the area's corresponding 1-hour 
ozone classification, reclassification would not change the offset 
requirement. Thus, the problem of the relative lack of available ERCs 
within the Indian country areas within the four subject areas would not 
be affected by reclassification.
    With respect to the Pechanga Tribe, we once again note that we are 
deferring reclassification of both the Morongo and Pechanga 
Reservations pending our decisions on their respective boundary change 
requests. However, such deferral has no bearing on the applicable NSR 
offset requirements within these two reservations, nor does it affect 
the relative lack of available ERCs. The current applicable offset 
ratio for VOC and NOX for the Morongo and Pechanga 
Reservations continues to be based on the classification of the South 
Coast Air Basin as ``extreme'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. (See CAA 
sections 182(e)(1) and 182(f) for offset requirements of ``extreme'' 
areas.)
    Comment #5: The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes assert that reducing 
the threshold for the applicability of General Conformity requirements 
from 25 to 10 tons per year VOC or NOX would require many 
more projects to demonstrate that their emissions of criteria 
pollutants will not impede progress toward attainment of the NAAQS.
    Response #5: We agree that reclassification of the South Coast Air 
Basin, as proposed, would lower the applicability threshold under our 
General Conformity rule from 25 tons per year to 10 tons per year. We 
also note that reclassification of the other three nonattainment areas 
would also lower the applicable de minimis thresholds under EPA's 
General Conformity rule in those areas.
    As explained in the preamble of our proposed rule (see pages 43658 
and 43661), under EPA's General Conformity rule, Federal agencies bear 
the responsibility of determining conformity of actions in 
nonattainment and maintenance areas that require Federal permits, 
approvals, or funding. Therefore, not all projects undertaken by the 
Tribes are subject to the General Conformity rule, but only those 
tribal projects that require Federal agency permits, approvals or 
funding. Moreover, the definition of ``indirect emissions'' in the 
General Conformity rule (see 40 CFR 93.152) further limits the reach of 
the rule by requiring that emissions caused by the action be reasonably 
foreseeable and of the type which the Federal agency can practicably 
control and can maintain control over due to a continuing program 
responsibility of the Federal agency.
    Furthermore, the potential impacts associated with any lowering of 
a General Conformity de minimis threshold are not unique to Federal 
actions proposed in Indian country--they affect Federal actions 
throughout a given nonattainment area. Please note that the General 
Conformity rule excludes from the applicability determination that 
portion of a Federal action that includes major new or modified 
stationary sources that require a permit under the NSR program (CAA 
section 173) or the prevention of significant deterioration program 
(CAA Title I, Part C). See 40 CFR 93.153(d)(1).
    Lastly, because we have decided to defer reclassification of the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, the General Conformity threshold 
will remain at 25 tons per year of VOC or NOX for these 
Reservations pending our final decisions on the Tribes' boundary change 
requests.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The General Conformity de minimis threshold for the South 
Coast Air Basin, including all Indian country therein except the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, will be lowered from 25 tons per 
year to 10 tons per year by virtue of this final rule.

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

[[Page 24415]]

    Comment #6: An anonymous commenter states that San Joaquin Valley 
has not applied the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding measures and has not 
reviewed permits according to the NSR requirements of an ``extreme'' 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area. The commenter also states that the lower 
permitting thresholds and higher offset ratio for San Joaquin Valley 
have been in effect since the May 2004 action that classified the area 
as ``extreme'' for 1-hour ozone. Accordingly, the commenter insists 
that EPA must require San Joaquin Valley to evaluate all of its 
permitting actions from that point forward against the requirements of 
an ``extreme'' 1-hour ozone classification.
    Response #6: This comment is outside the scope of our proposed 
action. This comment does not challenge our proposed action to grant 
the State of California's request under 40 CFR 51.903(b) and CAA 
section 181(b)(3) to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 
area to ``extreme'' for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard nor does it 
challenge our decision not to establish any new SIP revision deadlines 
for the San Joaquin Valley area. Instead, it pertains to the 
implementation and enforcement of 1-hour ozone ``extreme'' NSR 
permitting requirements in the San Joaquin Valley at the corresponding 
major source threshold and offset ratio for that classification. As 
noted in footnote 18 on page 43662 of the preamble to our 
proposed rule: ``The deadlines proposed herein relate solely to 
specific additional requirements triggered by the reclassification for 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and should not be interpreted as relieving an 
area of any existing obligation that the area has based on its 1-hour 
ozone classification, or of existing obligations not related to 
attainment that are based on its current 8-hour ozone classification.''
    Moreover, the NSR requirements to which EPA refers in the proposed 
rule relate to the State of California's obligation to submit SIP 
revisions meeting the statutory requirements, not to the requirements 
on new stationary sources and modifications themselves.\10\ In March 
2009, the State of California submitted a SIP revision including NSR 
rules that apply in the San Joaquin Valley that are intended to address 
the ``extreme'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area NSR requirements. On 
April 12, 2010, EPA's Region 9 Regional Administrator signed a final 
rule to take a limited approval and limited disapproval action on this 
SIP revision. The pre-publication version of this final rule has been 
placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., page 43658 of the preamble to the proposed rule 
(74 FR 43654)(``In regards to * * * the requirements for SIPs 
regarding * * * (``new source review''), the reclassifications would 
not lower the ``major source'' applicability thresholds required in 
a revised SIP * * *'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    We believe that the plain language of CAA section 181(b)(3) 
mandates that we approve voluntary reclassification requests,\11\ and 
thus, EPA is taking final action to grant the State's request for the 
following voluntary reclassifications: the San Joaquin Valley area from 
``serious'' to ``extreme''; the South Coast Air Basin area from 
``severe-17'' to ``extreme''; and the Coachella Valley and Sacramento 
Metro areas from ``serious'' to ``severe-15.'' Upon the effective date 
of this final action granting the reclassifications, these four areas 
are required to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as 
practicable, but not later than the applicable maximum attainment 
period set forth in 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1: June 15, 2024 for San 
Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin; and June 15, 2019 for 
Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The reclassification requests submitted by the State of 
California do not explicitly address Indian country located within 
the various ozone nonattainment areas. We have assumed that the 
State of California's request relates only to the portions of the 
nonattainment areas that lie outside of Indian country because the 
State is not approved to implement the CAA in Indian country located 
within the state.
    \12\ Because we are reclassifying Indian country in these areas 
consistent with the classifications requested by the State (with the 
exception of the two reservations for which we are deferring 
reclassification), the new attainment dates apply area-wide to both 
State lands and Indian country located therein. Unlike the State of 
California, however, the Indian tribes located within the four 
subject areas are not subject to specific plan submittal and 
implementation deadlines under the new ozone classifications. See 40 
CFR 49.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with reclassification of the four subject areas, and 
for the reasons discussed above and in the proposed rule, we are 
establishing the deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective 
date of reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Sacramento 
Metro portion (Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Placer County APCD, and 
Feather River AQMD only) of the California SIP to meet the NSR 
requirements of a ``severe-15'' area. As discussed above, EPA is 
deferring the setting of a submittal deadline for revision to the 
California SIP for the four subject areas to meet the requirements of 
CAA section 185. With the exceptions of submittal requirements for SIP 
revisions for the NSR requirements for the Sacramento Metro area, and 
the section 185 fee requirements for the four subject areas, we have 
determined that the State has submitted SIP revisions for all other 
additional requirements for the four subject areas. As such, there is 
no need to establish a deadline for any other SIP revision 
requirement.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The deadline established through this final action relates 
solely to specific additional requirements triggered by the 
reclassification for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and should not be 
interpreted as relieving any of the four areas of any existing 
obligation that an area has based on its 1-hour ozone 
classification, or of existing obligations unrelated to attainment 
that are based on an area's original 8-hour ozone classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, consistent with our discretionary authority under CAA 
sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4), and for the reasons discussed above and 
in the proposed rule, we are similarly finalizing our reclassification 
of all Indian country within the four areas, except Indian country 
pertaining to the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes, consistent with the 
reclassification requests for the surrounding non-Indian country lands. 
As discussed above, EPA is deferring the reclassification of the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations pending our final decisions on their 
boundary change requests. In Table 1 below, we list tribes that have 
Indian country located within the four subject areas of this final 
action. Aside from the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, we also note 
that the reclassifications apply to all Indian country within any of 
the four subject areas that exists at present or at any future time 
while the given area continues to be designated as nonattainment. 
Reclassification lowers the de minimis thresholds for the affected 
tribes, as per EPA's General Conformity rule (40 CFR part 53, subpart 
B), but does not lower the applicable ``major source'' thresholds 
because the 25 tons per year ``major source'' thresholds for VOC and 
NOX in the Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas, and 
the 10 tons per year thresholds for VOC and NOX in the San 
Joaquin Valley and South Coast areas, already apply under the areas' 1-
hour ozone classifications.

[[Page 24416]]



          Table 1--Tribes With Indian Country Located Within the Four Areas Subject to Reclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          San Joaquin Valley            South coast air basin       Coachella Valley         Sacramento metro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians    Cahuilla Band of         Agua Caliente Band of    Rumsey Indian Rancheria
 (including the Big Sandy Rancheria).   Indians (including the   Cahuilla Indians         of Wintun Indians
                                        Cahuilla Reservation).   (including the Agua      (including the Rumsey
                                                                 Caliente Indian          Indian Rancheria).
                                                                 Reservation).
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono         Ramona Band of Cahuilla  Augustine Band of        Shingle Springs Band of
 Indians (including the Cold Springs    Mission Indians          Cahuilla Indians         Miwok Indians
 Rancheria).                            (including the Ramona    (including the           [including the Shingle
                                        Band).                   Augustine Reservation).  Springs Rancheria
                                                                                          (Verona Tract).
North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians   San Manuel Band of       Cabazon Band of Mission  United Auburn Indian
 (including the North Fork Rancheria).  Mission Indians          Indians (including the   Community (including
                                        (including the San       Cabazon Reservation).    the Auburn Rancheria).
                                        Manuel Reservation).
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi       Santa Rosa Band of       Santa Rosa Band of
 Indians (including the Picayune        Cahuilla Indians         Cahuilla Indians
 Rancheria).                            (including the South     (including the
                                        Coast Air Basin          Coachella Valley
                                        portion of the Santa     portion of the Santa
                                        Rosa Reservation).       Rosa Reservation).
Santa Rosa Indian Community            Soboba Band of           Torres Martinez Desert
 (including the Santa Rosa Rancheria).  Luise[ntilde]o Indians   Cahuilla Indians
                                        (including the Soboba    (including the Torres-
                                        Reservation).            Martinez Reservation)
Table Mountain Rancheria (including    Reclassification         Twenty-Nine Palms Band
 the Table Mountain Rancheria).         Deferred for:            of Mission Indians
                                       Morongo Band of Mission   (including the Twenty-
                                        Indians (including the   Nine Palms Reservation-
                                        Morongo Reservation).    Riverside County
                                                                 Section).
Tule River Indian Tribe (including     Reclassification
 the Tule River Reservation).           Deferred for: Pechanga
                                        Band of Luise[ntilde]o
                                        Mission Indians
                                        (including the
                                        Pechanga Reservation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To codify our final action reclassifying the four subject areas, we 
are revising the table for 8-hour ozone in 40 CFR 81.305 accordingly.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore 
is not subject to Executive Order 12866. With respect to lands under 
state jurisdiction, voluntary reclassifications under CAA section 
181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely upon requests by the State, and 
EPA is required under the CAA to grant them. These actions do not, in 
and of themselves, impose any new requirements on any sectors of the 
economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are clearly 
defined with respect to the differently classified areas, and because 
those requirements are automatically triggered by reclassification, 
reclassification does not impose a materially adverse impact under 
Executive Order 12866. With respect to Indian country, 
reclassifications do not establish deadlines for air quality plans or 
plan revisions. For these reasons, this final action is also not 
subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001).
    In addition, I certify that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and that 
this final rule 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), because EPA is required to 
grant requests by states for voluntary reclassifications and such 
reclassifications in and of themselves do not impose any federal 
intergovernmental mandate, and because tribes are not subject to 
implementation plan submittal deadlines that apply to States as a 
result of reclassifications.
    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in section 1(a) of the Executive Order to 
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or 
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
    Several Indian tribes have Indian country located within the 
boundaries of the four subject ozone nonattainment areas. EPA 
implements federal Clean Air Act programs, including reclassifications, 
in these areas of Indian country consistent with our discretionary 
authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act. EPA 
has concluded that this final rule might have tribal implications for 
the purposes of E.O. 13175, but would not impose substantial direct 
costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. This final rule 
does not affect implementation of new source review for new or modified 
stationary sources proposed to be located in the Indian country areas 
proposed for reclassification, but might affect projects proposed in 
these areas that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. Such 
projects are subject to the requirements of EPA's General Conformity 
rule, and Federal permits, approvals, or funding for the projects may 
be more difficult to obtain because of the lower de minimis thresholds 
triggered by reclassification.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As noted in section IV (``Public Comments and EPA 
Responses''), EPA is deferring the reclassification of the Morongo 
and Pechanga Reservations pending our final decisions on their 
boundary change requests. Thus, for the time being, the current 
General Conformity de minimis thresholds (25 tons per year for VOC 
or NOX) continue to apply for projects proposed in the 
Morongo and Pechanga Reservations that require Federal permits, 
approvals, or funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the potential implications, EPA contacted tribal officials 
early in the process of developing this final rule to provide an 
opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into its development. 
On July 31, 2008, we sent letters to leaders of the 22 tribes with 
Indian country areas in the four subject nonattainment areas seeking 
their input

[[Page 24417]]

on how we could best communicate with the tribes on the rulemaking 
effort.\15\ We received responses from nine tribes, of whom four 
indicated face-to-face meetings as one of several preferred means of 
communication. Prior to our proposal we had met with two tribes that 
sought specific meetings on the reclassifications: Morongo Band of 
Mission Indians (``Morongo Tribe'') and Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o 
Mission Indians (``Pechanga Tribe''). Following the end of the comment 
period on our proposal, we met again with the Morongo and Pechanga 
Tribes to discuss the Tribes' broader requests for separate 
nonattainment areas. We also contacted the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of 
Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians, and the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla 
Indians to clarify how the reclassification would affect each Tribe's 
Indian country in Coachella Valley. EPA has carefully considered the 
views expressed by the Tribes, including (as described in detail above) 
the views expressed in written comments on EPA's proposed 
reclassification rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In our proposed rule, we indicated that we sent letters to 
the leaders of 21 tribes with Indian country areas in the four 
subject nonattainment areas. On July 31, 2008 we had also sent a 
letter to the leader of the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Luise[ntilde]o 
Mission Indians in relation to the Tribe's Indian country located 
within the Western Mojave Desert nonattainment area, for which the 
State of California has also submitted a reclassification request 
but for which we have deferred action. This Tribe is affected by 
this final action in relation to its Indian country in the Coachella 
Valley nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final action also does not have Federalism implications 
because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, nor on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999). This final action does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
    This final rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because EPA interprets E.O. 
13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation.
    Reclassification actions do not involve technical standards and 
thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) also do not 
apply. In addition, this final rule does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. This reclassification action relates 
to ozone, a pollutant that is regional in nature, and is not the type 
of action that could result in the types of local impacts addressed in 
Executive Order 12898.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 6, 2010. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 15, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
2. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California--Ozone (8-
Hour Standard)'' by revising the entries for ``Los Angeles-South Coast 
Air Basin, CA,'' ``Riverside Co. (Coachella Valley), CA,'' ``Sacramento 
Metro, CA,'' and ``San Joaquin Valley, CA,''; by republishing footnotes 
``a'', ``b'', and ``1''; by adding footnotes ``c'' and ``2''; and by 
designating the footnotes in the correct order to read as follows:


Sec.  81.305  California.

                                       California--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation \a\                         Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Date\1\               Type              Date\1\               Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
    Los Angeles--South Coast Air  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
     Basin, CA.
    Los Angeles County (part)...  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.

[[Page 24418]]


        That portion of Los                                                        .............................
         Angeles County which
         lies south and west of
         a line described as
         follows: Beginning at
         the Los Angeles-San
         Bernardino County
         boundary and running
         west along the Township
         line common to Township
         3 North and Township 2
         North, San Bernardino
         Base and Meridian; then
         north along the range
         line common to Range 8
         West and Range 9 West;
         then west along the
         Township line common to
         Township 4 North and
         Township 3 North; then
         north along the range
         line common to Range 12
         West and Range 13 West
         to the southeast corner
         of Section 12, Township
         5 North and Range 13
         West; then west along
         the south boundaries of
         Sections 12, 11, 10, 9,
         8, and 7, Township 5
         North and Range 13 West
         to the boundary of the
         Angeles National Forest
         which is collinear with
         the range line common
         to Range 13 West and
         Range 14 West; then
         north and west along
         the Angeles National
         Forest boundary to the
         point of intersection
         with the Township line
         common to Township 7
         North and Township 6
         North (point is at the
         northwest corner of
         Section 4 in Township 6
         North and Range 14
         West); then west along
         the Township line
         common to Township 7
         North and Township 6
         North; then north along
         the range line common
         to Range 15 West and
         Range 16 West to the
         southeast corner of
         Section 13, Township 7
         North and Range 16
         West; then along the
         south boundaries of
         Sections 13, 14, 15,
         16, 17, and 18,
         Township 7 North and
         Range 16 West; then
         north along the range
         line common to Range 16
         West and Range 17 West
         to the north boundary
         of the Angeles National
         Forest (collinear with
         the Township line
         common to Township 8
         North and Township 7
         North); then west and
         north along the Angeles
         National Forest
         boundary to the point
         of intersection with
         the south boundary of
         the Rancho La Liebre
         Land Grant; then west
         and north along this
         land grant boundary to
         the Los Angeles-Kern
         County boundary.
    Orange County...............  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    Riverside County (part).....  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
        That portion of                                                            .............................
         Riverside County,
         except that portion of
         the area defined below
         that lies within the
         Morongo Reservation or
         the Pechanga
         Reservation \c\, which
         lies to the west of a
         line described as
         follows: Beginning at
         the Riverside-San Diego
         County boundary and
         running north along the
         range line common to
         Range 4 East and Range
         3 East, San Bernardino
         Base and Meridian; then
         east along the Township
         line common to Township
         8 South and Township 7
         South; then north along
         the range line common
         to Range 5 East and
         Range 4 East; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 6
         South and Township 7
         South to the southwest
         corner of Section 34,
         Township 6 South, Range
         4 East; then north
         along the west
         boundaries of Sections
         34, 27, 22, 15, 10, and
         3, Township 6 South,
         Range 4 East; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 5
         South and Township 6
         South; then north along
         the range line common
         to Range 4 East and
         Range 3 East; then west
         along the south
         boundaries of Sections
         13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and
         18, Township 5 South,
         Range 3 East; then
         north along the range
         line common to Range 2
         East and Range 3 East;
         to the Riverside-San
         Bernardino County line.
        Morongo Reservation \c\.  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-17.
        Pechanga Reservation\ c\  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-17.
    San Bernardino County (part)  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
        That portion of San
         Bernardino County which
         lies south and west of
         a line described as
         follows: Beginning at
         the San Bernardino-
         Riverside County
         boundary and running
         north along the range
         line common to Range 3
         East and Range 2 East,
         San Bernardino Base and
         Meridian; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 3
         North and Township 2
         North to the San
         Bernardino-Los Angeles
         County boundary.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Riverside Co. (Coachella          .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
 Valley), CA.
    Riverside County (part).....  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.

[[Page 24419]]


        That portion of                                                            .............................
         Riverside County which
         lies to the east of a
         line described as
         follows: Beginning at
         the Riverside-San Diego
         County boundary and
         running north along the
         range line common to
         Range 4 East and Range
         3 East, San Bernardino
         Base and Meridian; then
         east along the Township
         line common to Township
         8 South and Township 7
         South; then north along
         the range line common
         to Range 5 East and
         Range 4 East; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 6
         South and Township 7
         South to the southwest
         corner of Section 34,
         Township 6 South, Range
         4 East; then north
         along the west
         boundaries of Sections
         34, 27, 22, 15, 10, and
         3, Township 6 South,
         Range 4 East; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 5
         South and Township 6
         South; then north along
         the range line common
         to Range 4 East and
         Range 3 East; then west
         along the south
         boundaries of Sections
         13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and
         18, Township 5 South,
         Range 3 East; then
         north along the range
         line common to Range 2
         East and Range 3 East;
         to the Riverside-San
         Bernardino County line.
         And that portion of
         Riverside County which
         lies to the west of a
         line described as
         follows:
        That segment of the                                                        .............................
         southwestern boundary
         line of Hydrologic Unit
         Number 18100100 within
         Riverside County,
         further described as
         follows: Beginning at
         the Riverside-Imperial
         County boundary and
         running north along the
         range line common to
         Range 17 East and Range
         16 East, San Bernardino
         Base and Meridian; then
         northwest along the
         ridge line of the
         Chuckwalla Mountains,
         through Township 8
         South, Range 16 East
         and Township 7 South,
         Range 16 East, until
         the Black Butte
         Mountain, elevation
         4504'; then west and
         northwest along the
         ridge line to the
         southwest corner of
         Township 5 South, Range
         14 East; then north
         along the range line
         common to Range 14 East
         and Range 13 East; then
         west and northwest
         along the ridge line to
         Monument Mountain,
         elevation 4834'; then
         southwest and then
         northwest along the
         ridge line of the
         Little San Bernardino
         Mountains to Quail
         Mountain, elev. 5814';
         then northwest along
         the ridge line to the
         Riverside-San
         Bernardino County line.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sacramento Metro, CA............  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
    El Dorado County (part).....  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
        All portions of the                                                        .............................
         county, except that
         portion of El Dorado
         County within the
         drainage area naturally
         tributary to Lake Tahoe
         including said Lake.
    Placer County (part)........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
        All portions of the                                                        .............................
         county except that
         portion of Placer
         County within the
         drainage area naturally
         tributary to Lake Tahoe
         including said Lake,
         plus that area in the
         vicinity of the head of
         the Truckee River
         described as follows:
         Commencing at the point
         common to the
         aforementioned drainage
         area crestline and the
         line common to
         Townships 15 North and
         16 North, Mount Diablo
         Base and Meridian, and
         following that line in
         a westerly direction to
         the northwest corner of
         Section 3, Township 15
         North, Range 16 East,
         Mount Diablo Base and
         Meridian, thence south
         along the west line of
         Sections 3 and 10,
         Township 15 North,
         Range 16 East, Mount
         Diablo Base and
         Meridian, to the
         intersection with the
         said drainage area
         crestline, thence
         following the said
         drainage area boundary
         in a southeasterly,
         then northeasterly
         direction to and along
         the Lake Tahoe Dam,
         thence following the
         said drainage area
         crestline in a
         northeasterly, then
         northwesterly direction
         to the point of
         beginning.
    Sacramento County...........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
    Solano County (part)........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.

[[Page 24420]]


        That portion of Solano                                                     .............................
         County which lies north
         and east of a line
         described as follows:
         Beginning at the
         intersection of the
         westerly boundary of
         Solano County and the
         \1/4\ section line
         running east and west
         through the center of
         Section 34; Township 6
         North, Range 2 West,
         Mount Diablo Base and
         Meridian, thence east
         along said \1/4\
         section line to the
         east boundary of
         Section 36, Township 6
         North, Range 2 West,
         thence south \1/2\ mile
         and east 2.0 miles,
         more or less, along the
         west and south boundary
         of Los Putos Rancho to
         the northwest corner of
         Section 4, Township 5
         North, Range 1 West,
         thence east along a
         line common to Township
         5 North and Township 6
         North to the northeast
         corner of Section 3,
         Township 5 North, Range
         1 East, thence south
         along section lines to
         the southeast corner of
         Section 10, Township 3
         North, Range 1 East,
         thence east along
         section lines to the
         south \1/4\ corner of
         Section 8, Township 3
         North, Range 2 East,
         thence east to the
         boundary between Solano
         and Sacramento
         Counties.
    Sutter County (part)........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.
        Portion south of a line                                                    .............................
         connecting the northern
         border of Yolo County
         to the SW tip of Yuba
         County and continuing
         along the southern Yuba
         County border to Placer
         County.
    Yolo County.................  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Severe-15.

                                                  * * * * * * *
San Joaquin Valley, CA..........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    Fresno County...............  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    Kern County (part)..........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
        That portion of Kern                                                       .............................
         County which lies west
         and north of a line
         described as follows:
         Beginning at the Kern-
         Los Angeles County
         boundary and running
         north and east along
         the northwest boundary
         of the Rancho La Libre
         Land Grant to the point
         of intersection with
         the range line common
         to R. 16 W. and R. 17
         W., San Bernardino Base
         and Meridian; north
         along the range line to
         the point of
         intersection with the
         Rancho El Tejon Land
         Grant boundary; then
         southeast, northeast,
         and northwest along the
         boundary of the Rancho
         El Tejon Land Grant to
         the northwest corner of
         S. 3, T. 11 N., R. 17
         W.; then west 1.2
         miles; then north to
         the Rancho El Tejon
         Land Grant boundary;
         then northwest along
         the Rancho El Tejon
         line to the southeast
         corner of S. 34, T. 32
         S., R. 30 E., Mount
         Diablo Base and
         Meridian; then north to
         the northwest corner of
         S. 35, T. 31 S., R. 30
         E.; then northeast
         along the boundary of
         the Rancho El Tejon
         Land Grant to the
         southwest corner of S.
         18, T. 31 S., R. 31 E.;
         then east to the
         southeast corner of S.
         13, T. 31 S., R. 31 E.;
         then north along the
         range line common to R.
         31 E. and R. 32 E.,
         Mount Diablo Base and
         Meridian, to the
         northwest corner of S.
         6, T. 29 S., R. 32 E.;
         then east to the
         southwest corner of S.
         31, T. 28 S., R. 32 E.;
         then north along the
         range line common to R.
         31 E. and R. 32 E. to
         the northwest corner of
         S. 6, T. 28 S., R. 32
         E., then west to the
         southeast corner of S.
         36, T. 27 S., R. 31 E.,
         then north along the
         range line common to R.
         31 E. and R. 32 E. to
         the Kern-Tulare County
         boundary.
    Kings County................  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    Madera County...............  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    Merced County...............  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    San Joaquin County..........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    Stanislaus County...........  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.
    Tulare County...............  .......  Nonattainment................    (\2\)  Subpart 2/Extreme.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\b\ The boundaries for these designated areas are based on coordinates of latitude and longitude derived from
  EPA Region 9's GIS database and are illustrated in a map entitled ``Eastern San Diego County Attainment Areas
  for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,'' dated March 9, 2004, including an attached set of coordinates. The map and
  attached set of coordinates are available at EPA's Region 9 Air Division office. The designated areas roughly
  approximate the boundaries of the reservations for these tribes, but their inclusion in this table is intended
  for CAA planning purposes only and is not intended to be a federal determination of the exact boundaries of
  the reservations. Also, the specific listing of these tribes in this table does not confer, deny, or withdraw
  Federal recognition of any of the tribes so listed nor any of the tribes not listed.
\c\ The use of reservation boundaries for this designation is for purposes of CAA planning only and is not
  intended to be a federal determination of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Nor does the specific
  listing of the Tribes in this table confer, deny, or withdraw Federal recognition of any of the Tribes listed
  or not listed.

[[Page 24421]]


\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is June 4, 2010.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-9599 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

