Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24409 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 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 action 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. 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 action 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 section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 18, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220, is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(362)(i)(D)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(362) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 4902, ‘‘Residential Water 

Heaters,’’ amended on March 19, 2009. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–10404 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians 

(‘‘Pechanga Tribe’’), in keeping with the 

classifications of nonattainment areas 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
24410 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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.’’ 

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 Luisen ̃ 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. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24411 

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 ‘‘severe15’’ 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. 

3Memorandum 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. 4Notwithstanding 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. 

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. 

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 HoustonGalveston-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. 

III. Deferral of Reclassification for 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians and 

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
24412 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) for the 2008 

Revised Ozone NAAQS. 

6See 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.’’ 

7EPA 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. 

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

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 uniformlyclassified 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24413 

8EPA’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 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. 

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’ ninefactor 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
24414 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9The 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. 

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


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24415 

10See, 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 * * *’’). 

11The 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. 

12Because 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. 

13The 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. 

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. 

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

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

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
24416 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

14As 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. 

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 (including the Big Sandy 

Rancheria).

Cahuilla Band of Indians (including the Cahuilla Reservation).Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians (including the Agua 

Caliente Indian Reservation).

Rumsey Indian Rancheria of 

Wintun Indians (including the 

Rumsey Indian Rancheria). 

Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono 

Indians (including the Cold 

Springs Rancheria).

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission 

Indians (including the Ramona 

Band).

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians (including the Augustine 

Reservation).

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 

Indians [including the Shingle 

Springs Rancheria (Verona 

Tract). 

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the North Fork 

Rancheria).

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (including the San Manuel 

Reservation).

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

(including the Cabazon Reservation).

United Auburn Indian Community 

(including the Auburn 

Rancheria). 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians (including the Picayune 

Rancheria).

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians (including the South Coast 

Air Basin portion of the Santa 

Rosa Reservation).

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians (including the Coachella 

Valley portion of the Santa 

Rosa Reservation). 

Santa Rosa Indian Community (including the Santa Rosa 

Rancheria).

Soboba Band of Luisen ̃o Indians 

(including the Soboba Reservation).

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians (including the TorresMartinez Reservation) 

Table Mountain Rancheria (including the Table Mountain 

Rancheria).

Reclassification Deferred for: 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

(including the Morongo Reservation).

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (including the 

Twenty-Nine Palms Reservation-Riverside County Section). 

Tule River Indian Tribe (including 

the Tule River Reservation).

Reclassification Deferred for: 

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃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

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24417 

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 

Luisen ̃ 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. 

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 Luisen ̃ 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 Luisen ̃ 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. 

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. 

■ Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 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: 

§ 81.305 California. 

CALIFORNIA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

.

* * * * * * * 

Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin, CA ................................................ ............ Nonattainment ........... (2) Subpart 2/Extreme. 

Los Angeles County (part) ........................................................................ ............ Nonattainment ........... (2) Subpart 2/Extreme. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
24418 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD)—Continued 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

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 BernardinoRiverside 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 Valley), CA .............................................................. ............ Nonattainment ........... (2) Subpart 2/Severe-15. 

Riverside County (part) ............................................................................. ............ Nonattainment ........... (2) Subpart 2/Severe-15. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24419 

CALIFORNIA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD)—Continued 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
24420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD)—Continued 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

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. 

bThe 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. cThe 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24421 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

2This date is June 4, 2010. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–9599 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0611; FRL–8821–4] 

Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of tebuconazole 

in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8. 

Bayer CropScience requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

5, 2010. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 6, 2010, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0611. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracy Keigwin, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6605; e-mail address: 

keigwin.tracy @epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to 

Other Related Information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

To access the harmonized test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppts and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0611 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or 

before July 6, 2010. 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit this copy, 

identified by docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2009–0611, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Petition for Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of September 

4, 2009 (74 FR 45848) (FRL–8434–4), 

EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 9F7515) by Bayer 

CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., P.O. 

Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709. The petition requested that 40 

CFR part 180 be amended by 

establishing tolerances for residues of 

the fungicide tebuconazole in or on the 

raw agricultural commodity vegetables, 

fruiting, group at 1.4 parts per million 

(ppm). That notice referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

Bayer CropScience, the registrant, 

which is available to the public in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

There were no comments received in 

response to the notice of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has 

modified the proposed tolerance to 1.3 

ppm. The reason for this change is 

explained in Unit IV.C. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES