43654 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2009– 

0547. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Powers, at (215) 814–2308, or 

by e-mail at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

31, 2009 (74 FR 38154), EPA published 

an NPR to determine that the West 

Virginia portions of three nonattainment 

areas have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. In the preamble of this 

document, EPA inadvertently omitted a 

partial county that is part of the West 

Virginia portion of the ParkersburgMarietta WV–OH nonattainment area. 

This action corrects the omission of the 

Grant Tax District in Pleasants County 

as part of the West Virginia portion of 

the nonattainment area. 

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 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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 correction to the 

proposed determination that the West 

Virginia portions of the HagerstownMartinsburg, Parkersburg-Marietta, and 

Wheeling nonattainment areas have 

clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

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. 

Correction 

In rule document E9–18393, on page 

38154, in the issue of July 31, 2009, the 

second sentence of the Summary is 

corrected to read: ‘‘These are Berkeley 

County, part of the HagerstownMartinsburg MD-WV nonattainment 

area; Wood County and the Grant Tax 

District in Pleasants County, part of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH 

nonattainment area; and Marshall 

County and Ohio County, part of the 

Wheeling WV-OH nonattainment area, 

hereinafter referred to in this notice as 

the West Virginia portions of the 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, ParkersburgMarietta, and Wheeling PM2.5

nonattainment areas.’’ 

Also, on page 38156, the last sentence 

of Section III is corrected to read: ‘‘The 

Hagerstown-Martinsburg nonattainment 

area (Berkeley County, WV and 

Washington County, MD), the 

Parkersburg-Marietta nonattainment 

area (Wood County, WV, the Grant Tax 

District in Pleasants County, WV, and 

Washington County, OH), and the 

Wheeling nonattainment area (Marshall 

County, WV, Ohio County, WV, and 

Belmont County, OH) were designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 81).’’ 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E9–20735 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0467; FRL–8950–2] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; California; San 

Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, 

Coachella Valley, and Sacramento 

Metro Ozone Nonattainment Areas; 

Reclassification 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43655 

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.’’ 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA 

is proposing to grant 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: 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 proposing to 

establish a deadline of no later than 12 

months from the effective date of 

reclassification for submittal of 

revisions to the Coachella Valley and 

Sacramento Metro area portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to meet certain additional 

requirements for ‘‘severe-15’’ 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. EPA has 

already received SIP revision submittals 

addressing most of the additional SIP 

requirements for these two areas and 

has received all of the related SIP 

revision submittals for San Joaquin 

Valley and the South Coast Air Basin. 

The Agency is not proposing a SIP 

revision schedule for any SIP 

requirements for which SIP submittals 

have already been received. 

A number of Indian tribes have Indian 

country 1 located within the boundaries 

of the affected areas. The State of 

California is not approved to administer 

any Clean Air Act programs in Indian 

country, and the relevant Indian tribes 

have not applied for eligibility to 

administer programs under the Clean 

Air Act for their areas. In these 

circumstances, EPA implements 

relevant reclassification provisions of 

the Clean Air Act in these Indian 

country areas and is proposing that 

these areas be reclassified in keeping 

with the classifications of 

nonattainment areas within which they 

are located. In connection with this 

proposed action, EPA has notified the 

affected tribal leaders and has invited 

consultation with interested tribes. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 28, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0467, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mays.rory@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action 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., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

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. What is the subject matter of this proposed 

rule? 

II. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

B. What is the standard for 8-hour ozone? 

C. What is a SIP and how does it relate to 

the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone? 

D. What are the affected California 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas, what are 

their current classifications, and what is 

the status of their SIP submittals? 

1. Affected Areas and Their Current 

Classifications 

2. Status of SIP Submittals 

E. What are the consequences of 

reclassifications? 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Granting the State’s Requests for 

Reclassification 

B. Reclassification of Indian Country 

1. Affected Tribes 

2. Evaluation 

3. Effects of Reclassifications on Indian 

Tribes 

C. Setting Deadlines for Submitting SIP 

Revisions 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the subject matter of this 

proposed rule? 

Today’s proposed rule provides EPA’s 

response to requests by a state for 

voluntary reclassifications, under 

section 181(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’), for certain areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard. Specifically, the State 

of California has requested 

reclassification to higher classifications 

for four 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas. These areas include San Joaquin 

Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Coachella 

Valley, and Sacramento Metro. We are 

reviewing these requests under section 

181(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 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.’’ 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
43656 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2Today’s proposed rule deals with the 

classifications and SIP obligations associated with 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997. On 

March 27, 2008, EPA revised the level of the 8-hour 

ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 for 

further information. Designations, classifications, 

and SIP obligations under the 2008 revised ozone 

standard will be addressed separately in future EPA 

rulemakings. 

3The design value for 8-hour ozone is defined at 

40 CFR 51.900(d). 

II. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

The CAA requires EPA to establish a 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for certain pervasive 

pollutants that ‘‘may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health 

and welfare’’ and to develop a primary 

and secondary standard for each 

NAAQS. The primary standard is 

designed to protect public health with 

an adequate margin of safety and the 

secondary standard is designed to 

protect public welfare and the 

environment. EPA has set NAAQS for 

six common air pollutants, referred to as 

criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, 

lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, 

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. 

These standards present state and local 

governments with the air quality levels 

an area must meet to comply with the 

CAA. 

B. What is the standard for 8-hour 

ozone? 

Ozone is a gas composed of three 

oxygen atoms. It is not usually emitted 

directly into the air, but at ground level 

is created by a chemical reaction 

between volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in 

the presence of sunlight. On July 18, 

1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone 

standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) 

to replace the less-protective 0.12 ppm 

1-hour ozone standard that was 

established by EPA in 1979. We revoked 

the 1-hour ozone standard effective June 

15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b) and 69 FR 

23858 (April 30, 2004). Under EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 3- 

year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered). (See 69 FR 

23858, April 30, 2004, for further 

information).2

C. What is a SIP and how does it relate 

to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone? 

Section 110 of the CAA requires states 

to develop air pollution regulations and 

control strategies to ensure that air 

quality meets the NAAQS established 

by EPA. Each state must submit these 

regulations and control strategies to EPA 

for approval and incorporation into the 

Federally-enforceable State 

Implementation Plan, or SIP. Each SIP 

protects air quality primarily by 

addressing air pollution at its point of 

origin. These SIPs can be extensive. 

They may contain state regulations or 

other enforceable documents and 

supporting information such as 

emission inventories, monitoring 

networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. 

We promulgated final rules to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in two phases. The Phase 1 

rule, which was issued on April 30, 

2004 (69 FR 23951), establishes, among 

other things, the classification structure 

and corresponding attainment 

deadlines, as well as the antibacksliding principles for the transition 

from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 

8-hour ozone standard. 

However, on December 22, 2006, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 

rule. See South Coast Air Quality 

Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 

(D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in 

response to several petitions for 

rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that 

the Phase 1 rule was vacated only with 

regard to those parts of the rule that had 

been successfully challenged. See South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, 489 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 

The provisions of the Phase 1 rule that 

are directly relevant for the purposes of 

this proposed rule were not among the 

provisions that were successfully 

challenged, and they remain effective. 

Such provisions include the 

classifications for areas under Title I, 

Part D, subpart 2 of the CAA and the 

related 8-hour ozone standard 

attainment dates. 

The Phase 2 rule, which was issued 

on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

addresses the remaining SIP obligations 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

including the SIP elements associated 

with reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress (RFP), modeling and 

attainment demonstrations, new source 

review (NSR), vehicle inspection and 

maintenance programs (I/M), and 

contingency measures (for failure to 

meet RFP and the attainment date). 

In March 2008, EPA found that some 

ozone nonattainment areas in the nation 

had failed to submit attainment 

demonstrations, Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) plans, and Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

SIPs. See 73 FR 15416 (March 24, 2008). 

For three California 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas (Sacramento Metro, 

Ventura County and Western Mojave 

Desert), we found that the areas had not 

submitted, either in part or in full, the 

RFP plans that applied by virtue of their 

current ozone classification (i.e., prior to 

reclassification). See letter dated March 

17, 2008 from Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA–Region IX, to Mary 

D. Nichols, Chairman, California Air 

Resources Board. 

Since our March 17, 2008 findings 

(published in the Federal Register on 

March 24, 2008), the State of California 

has submitted the necessary RFP plans 

for all three areas (i.e., Sacramento 

Metro, Ventura County and Western 

Mojave Desert). By letters dated 

September 19, 2008, October 2, 2008, 

and October 2, 2008, respectively, we 

notified California that we had found 

the Sacramento Metro, Ventura County 

and Western Mojave Desert plans that 

were submitted on the dates listed 

above to be complete and that the 

related sanctions clocks begun on March 

24, 2008 had been permanently stopped. 

See letters from Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, EPA–Region IX 

to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

California Air Resources Board, dated 

September 19, 2008, October 2, 2008, 

and October 2, 2008, respectively. 

D. What are the affected California 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas, what 

are their current classifications, and 

what is the status of their SIP 

submittals? 

1. Affected Areas and Their Current 

Classifications 

Effective June 15, 2004, we designated 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. At the same time, we 

assigned classifications to many of these 

areas based upon their ozone ‘‘design 

value,’’ in accordance with the structure 

of Part D, subpart 2 of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act.3 See 69 FR 23858 (April 

30, 2004) and 40 CFR 51.903(a). The 8- 

hour ozone designations and 

classifications for California areas are 

codified at 40 CFR 81.305. 

Classifications for four of those 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas are affected 

by this proposal. As noted previously, 

these four areas (and their current 

classifications) are as follows: San 

Joaquin Valley (serious), South Coast 

Air Basin (severe-17), Coachella Valley 

(serious), and Sacramento Metro 

(serious). 

2. Status of SIP Submittals 

Table 1 presents the 1-hour ozone 

classification (i.e., at the time of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43657 

4From the standpoint of SIP submittal 

requirements, there is no distinction between the 

‘‘severe-15’’ classification and the ‘‘severe-17’’ 

classification. 

5CARB’s November 28, 2007 submittal included 

an attainment demonstration plan as a ‘‘severe-15’’ 

area for Coachella Valley, but included the RFP 

plan for informational purposes only, effectively 

withholding the ‘‘severe-15’’ RFP plan from 

submittal to EPA, due to concerns about litigation 

and EPA policy on use of out-of-area reductions in 

RFP plans. CARB subsequently withdrew this 

withholding request in a letter to EPA dated 

February 19, 2008. For administrative SIP 

completeness and final Agency action purposes, 

EPA intends to treat the RFP plan for Coachella 

Valley as having been submitted on February 19, 

2008. 

6On May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29073), EPA took final 

action to grant the State’s request to reclassify 

Ventura County from ‘‘moderate’’ to ‘‘serious,’’ 

effective June 19, 2008. See 73 FR 29073 (May 20, 

2008). In our May 20, 2008 final rule, we stated that 

we will propose in a separate document a schedule 

for required plan submittals for Ventura County 

under the new classification. However, on June 27, 

2008, CARB submitted a SIP revision for Ventura 

County addressing certain additional SIP 

requirements that apply to Ventura County by 

virtue of reclassification from ‘‘moderate’’ to 

‘‘serious,’’ including RACT, RFP, attainment 

demonstration, and contingency measures. CARB 

has previously submitted SIP revisions for Ventura 

County addressing the enhanced monitoring 

requirement under CAA section 182(c)(1), the 

enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

requirement under CAA section 182(c)(3), and the 

clean-fuel vehicles requirement under CAA section 

182(c)(4). See 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997) and 64 

FR 46849 (August 27, 1999) for EPA’s approvals 

related to the I/M program and the clean-fuel 

vehicles requirement, respectively. In addition, 

CARB has submitted NSR rules consistent with the 

reclassification of this area. See 66 FR 76567 

(December 7, 2000) for EPA’s approval of Ventura 

County’s NSR rules. Since CARB has submitted SIP 

revisions addressing all of the additional 

requirements for Ventura County that apply by 

Continued 

designation for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS) for each of the four areas along 

with each area’s corresponding current 

and requested 8-hour ozone 

classification. A comparison of each 

area’s classification under the 1-hour 

ozone standard with the area’s 

classification under the 8-hour ozone 

standard (i.e., when reclassified) shows 

that the affected areas would, upon 

reclassification, essentially be returning 

to their respective classifications under 

the 1-hour standard.4 As a result, many 

SIP submittal requirements for these 

areas have already been met. Most 

ozone requirements for these areas were 

addressed in the 1990s in response to 

the CAA Amendments of 1990, as well 

as in response to previous ozone 

reclassifications under the 1-hour 

standard. In the paragraphs that follow 

Table 1, we discuss the status of 

relevant SIP submittals for each of the 

four areas. In this instance, the term, 

‘‘relevant SIP submittals,’’ refers to 

those submittals made to satisfy the 

specific additional requirements 

triggered by reclassification, not those 

that already apply by virtue of an area’s 

current classification. 

TABLE 1—EXISTING AND FUTURE OZONE CLASSIFICATIONS

8-Hour ozone nonattainment area 1-Hour ozone classification Existing 

8-hour ozone classification 

Requested 

8-hour ozone classification 

San Joaquin Valley ........................ Extreme ........................................ Serious .......................................... Extreme. 

South Coast Air Basin ................... Extreme ........................................ Severe-17 ..................................... Extreme. 

Coachella Valley ............................ Severe-17 ..................................... Serious .......................................... Severe-15. 

Sacramento Metro ......................... Severe-15 ..................................... Serious .......................................... Severe-15. 

San Joaquin Valley. On November 16, 

2007, the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) requested that EPA 

reclassify the San Joaquin Valley 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area from 

‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘extreme’’. This request 

was accompanied by a submittal of a 

SIP revision addressing certain 

additional SIP requirements that would 

apply to San Joaquin Valley by virtue of 

reclassification from ‘‘serious’’ to 

‘‘extreme,’’ including RFP, attainment 

demonstration, contingency measures, 

and transportation control measures to 

offset emissions from growth in vehicle 

miles traveled (CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A)). On June 18, 2009, CARB 

submitted a RACT SIP for San Joaquin 

Valley addressing stationary sources 

with potentials to emit 10 tons per year 

of VOC or NOX or more (i.e., the 

threshold for ‘‘major sources’’ in 

‘‘extreme’’ ozone nonattainment areas). 

On March 17, 2009, CARB submitted 

NSR rules consistent with the proposed 

reclassification of this area to 

‘‘extreme.’’ CARB has previously 

submitted SIP revisions for San Joaquin 

Valley addressing the clean fuels for 

boilers requirement under CAA section 

182(e)(3) and the major stationary 

source fees requirement under CAA 

section 185. See 74 FR 33933, at 33945 

(July 14, 2009) and 74 FR 33950 (July 

14, 2009; reproposed August 19, 2009), 

respectively, for EPA proposed actions 

on those submittals. 

South Coast Air Basin. On November 

28, 2007, CARB requested that EPA 

reclassify the South Coast Air Basin 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area from 

‘‘severe-17’’ to ‘‘extreme.’’ This request 

was accompanied by a submittal of a 

SIP revision addressing certain 

additional SIP requirements that would 

apply to the South Coast Air Basin by 

virtue of reclassification from ‘‘severe17’’ to ‘‘extreme,’’ including RFP, 

attainment demonstration, and 

contingency measures. CARB submitted 

an ‘‘extreme’’ RACT SIP for the area on 

January 31, 2007. CARB has submitted 

NSR rules consistent with the proposed 

reclassification of this area to 

‘‘extreme.’’ See 61 FR 64291 (December 

4, 1996) for information regarding South 

Coast NSR rules. CARB has previously 

submitted SIP revisions for South Coast 

Air Basin addressing the clean fuels for 

boilers requirement under CAA section 

182(e)(3). See 61 FR 57775 (November 8, 

1996) for EPA’s approval of the rule 

submitted to satisfy the CAA section 

182(e)(3) requirement in the South 

Coast. 

Coachella Valley. In that same 

November 28, 2007 reclassification 

request and submittal, CARB requested 

that EPA reclassify the Coachella Valley 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area from 

‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘severe-15.’’ The state has 

made a submittal addressing certain 

additional SIP requirements that would 

apply to Coachella Valley by virtue of 

reclassification from ‘‘serious’’ to 

‘‘severe-15,’’ including RFP, attainment 

demonstration, contingency measures, 

and transportation control measures to 

offset emissions from growth in vehicle 

miles traveled (CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A)).5 CARB submitted a 

‘‘severe-15’’ RACT SIP for the area on 

January 31, 2007. CARB has submitted 

NSR rules consistent with the proposed 

reclassification of this area to ‘‘severe15.’’ See 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 

1996) for information regarding NSR 

rules that apply within Coachella 

Valley. CARB has not yet submitted a 

SIP revision addressing the CAA section 

185 fees requirement for Coachella 

Valley. 

Sacramento Metro. By letter dated 

February 14, 2008, CARB requested that 

EPA reclassify three California areas 

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour 

ozone standard: Ventura County,6


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
43658 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

virtue of reclassification from ‘‘moderate’’ to 

‘‘serious,’’ we will not be proposing a schedule for 

any additional SIP revisions for Ventura County as 

a ‘‘serious’’ area under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

7The Sacramento Metro 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area includes all of Sacramento 

County and Yolo County, and portions of El 

Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Sutter Counties. The 

applicable air districts include Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

(AQMD), Yolo-Solano AQMD, El Dorado County 

AQMD, Placer County Air Pollution Control District 

(APCD), and Feather River AQMD. 

8CARB has requested that the Western Mojave 

Desert 8-hour ozone nonattainment area be 

reclassified from ‘‘moderate’’ to ‘‘severe-17.’’ EPA 

will take action on CARB’s reclassification request 

for Western Mojave Desert in a separate rulemaking. 

9 In EPA’s phase 1 ozone implementation rule, 

EPA made NSR applicability thresholds dependent 

upon the status and classification of an area under 

the 8-hour ozone standard. The effect of the ruling 

in the South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. 

v. EPA case is to restore NSR applicability 

thresholds pursuant to the classifications 

previously in effect for areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 

EPA memorandum from Robert J. Meyers, ‘‘New 

Source Review (NSR) Aspects of the Decision of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit on the Phase 1 Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS),’’ dated October 3, 2007. As 

provided in CAA sections 501 and 502(a) and 40 

CFR 70.2, 70.3(a), 71.2 and 71.3(a), the thresholds 

at which a source is required to apply for and 

operate a Title V operating permit are linked to the 

NSR ‘‘major source’’ applicability threshold. 

10The reclassification requests submitted by 

CARB do not explicitly address Indian country 

located within the various ozone nonattainment 

areas. We assume that CARB’s request relates only 

to the portions of the nonattainment areas that lie 

outside of Indian country. 

11 If today’s action is finalized as proposed, the 

new attainment dates would apply area-wide to 

both State lands and Indian country located therein, 

but unlike the State of California, the Indian tribes 

located within the four subject areas would not be 

subject to specific plan submittal and 

implementation deadlines under the new ozone 

classifications, such as plan submittals discussed in 

subsection III.C of this document. 

Sacramento Metro,7 and Western 

Mojave Desert.8 With respect to 

Sacramento Metro, CARB requested 

reclassification from ‘‘serious’’ to 

‘‘severe-15.’’ On April 17, 2009, CARB 

submitted a SIP revision for the 

Sacramento Metro nonattainment area 

addressing certain additional SIP 

requirements that would apply to the 

Sacramento Metro area by virtue of 

reclassification from ‘‘serious’’ to 

‘‘severe-15,’’ including RFP, attainment 

demonstration, contingency measures, 

and transportation control measures to 

offset emissions from growth in vehicle 

miles traveled (CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A)). CARB has also submitted 

‘‘severe-15’’ area RACT SIPs (i.e., 

implementing RACT for sources with 

potential to emit 25 tons per year of 

VOC or NOX or more) for all air districts 

within the Sacramento Metro area. For 

New Source Review, CARB has 

submitted a ‘‘severe-15’’ area SIP only 

for the Yolo-Solano and El Dorado 

portions of the Sacramento Metro area, 

and CARB has submitted a SIP revision 

addressing the CAA section 185 fees 

requirement only for the Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD portion of the 

Sacramento Metro area. See 68 FR 

51184 (August 26, 2003) for EPA’s 

approval of Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD’s fees rule. 

E. What are the consequences of 

reclassifications? 

By granting a state’s request to 

reclassify an ozone nonattainment area 

to a higher classification, EPA must 

address submittal deadlines for SIP 

requirements that have become 

applicable to an area as a result of its 

higher classification. Such SIP 

requirements include submittals that 

demonstrate RACT level of control for 

all stationary sources with potentials to 

emit at lower ‘‘major source’’ emissions 

thresholds, RFP, and attainment. We 

note, however, that while the state is 

generally provided time to submit SIP 

revisions, there are certain requirements 

that would be triggered upon the 

effective date of the reclassification, 

such as lower applicability (or ‘‘de 

minimis’’) thresholds under our General 

Conformity rule (see 40 CFR 

93.153(b)(1)). For Federal actions 

proposed in San Joaquin Valley, the de 

minimis threshold under EPA’s General 

Conformity rule would drop from 50 

tons per year to 10 tons per year for 

VOC or NOX. In the South Coast, the de 

minimis threshold would drop from 25 

to 10 tons per year. In Coachella Valley 

and Sacramento Metro, the de minimis 

threshold would drop from 50 to 25 tons 

per year. See 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1). 

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. 

In regards to Title V operating permit 

programs and the requirements for SIPs 

regarding review of new or modified 

major stationary sources (‘‘new source 

review’’), the reclassifications proposed 

herein would not lower the ‘‘major 

source’’ applicability thresholds 

required in a revised SIP because the 

statutory thresholds that applied by 

virtue of the areas’ classifications under 

the 1-hour ozone standard continue to 

apply as anti-backsliding measures for 

the 8-hour ozone standard (see South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) 

rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245 

(clarifying that the vacatur was limited 

to the issues on which the court granted 

the petitions for review)), 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 (see Table 1 above).9

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Granting the State’s Requests for 

Reclassification 

We find that the plain language of 

section 181(b)(3) mandates that we 

approve voluntary reclassification 

requests,10 and thus, EPA intends to 

take final action granting 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 a final action 

granting the reclassifications, these four 

areas will be 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.11

B. Reclassification of Indian Country 

1. Affected Tribes 

Table 2 lists the tribes that have 

Indian country geographically located in 

the nonattainment areas at issue in this 

proposal. As shown in Table 2, 21 tribes 

are located within the four areas: seven 

in San Joaquin Valley, seven in South 

Coast, four in Coachella Valley, and 

three in Sacramento Metro. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43659 

12Consistent with this discretionary authority, 

EPA is also authorized to promulgate such federal 

implementation plan provisions as are necessary or 

appropriate to protect air quality in the absence of 

an approved tribal implementation plan. See 40 

CFR section 49.11. EPA is continuing to evaluate air 

quality issues throughout Indian country located in 

these nonattainment areas. At this point, we do not 

believe that it is necessary or appropriate to 

promulgate an RFP, attainment, or RACT FIP for 

any of the Indian country areas located within the 

four nonattainment areas. EPA intends to consult 

with the relevant Indian tribes regarding this issue. 

TABLE 2—INDIAN TRIBES LOCATED IN AREAS SUBJECT TO RECLASSIFICATIONS

San Joaquin Valley South Coast 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).

United Auburn Indian Community 

(including the Auburn 

Rancheria). 

Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the Cold Springs 

Rancheria).

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

(including the Morongo Reservation).

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (including the Augustine Reservation).Rumsey Indian Rancheria of 

Wintun Indians (including the 

Rumsey Indian Rancheria). 

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the North Fork 

Rancheria).

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃o Mission Indians (including the 

Pechanga Reservation).

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

(including the Cabazon Reservation).

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 

Indians [including the Shingle 

Springs Rancheria (Verona 

Tract)]. 

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians (including the Picayune 

Rancheria).

Ramona Band of Cahuilla (including the Ramona Band).Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians (including the TorresMartinez Reservation).

Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut 

Tribe (including the Santa Rosa 

Rancheria).

San Manuel Band of Serrano 

Mission Indians (including the 

San Manuel Reservation).

Table Mountain Rancheria (including the Table Mountain 

Rancheria).

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (including the 

Santa Rosa Reservation).

Tule River Indian Tribe (including 

the Tule River Reservation).

Soboba Band of Luisen ̃o Mission 

Indians (including the Soboba 

Reservation).

2. Evaluation 

We have considered the relevance of 

the State’s reclassification requests to 

reclassification of these tribes’ Indian 

country located within the various 

nonattainment areas. 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 treatmentin-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. For the following 

reasons, EPA is proposing to directly 

administer section 181(b)(3) and 

reclassify these Indian country areas in 

order to avoid inappropriate and 

administratively infeasible results.12

Ground-level ozone continues to be a 

pervasive pollution problem in areas 

throughout the United States. Ozone 

and precursor pollutants that cause 

ozone can be transported throughout a 

nonattainment area. Therefore, 

boundaries for nonattainment areas are 

drawn to encompass both areas with 

direct sources of the pollution problem 

as well as nearby areas in the same 

airshed. Initial classifications of 

nonattainment areas are coterminous 

with, that is, they match exactly, their 

boundaries. EPA believes this approach 

best ensures public health protection 

from the adverse effects of ozone 

pollution. 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, violations of the eight-hour 

ozone standard, which are measured 

and modeled throughout the 

nonattainment areas, 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. 

Uniformity of classification 

throughout a nonattainment area is thus 

a guiding principle and premise when 

an area is being reclassified. With regard 

to the Indian country at issue in this 

proposal, EPA has also taken into 

account other factors. For example, the 

likelihood of attainment by the 

applicable deadline under the current 

classification is an appropriate 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
43660 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

13 In this action, we are not reconsidering the 

boundaries of the nonattainment areas for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, but we expect to continue to discuss 

boundary issues with Tribes that have expressed 

concerns about their inclusion within large 

nonattainment areas. To date, such Tribes include 

the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the 

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians whose 

concerns relate to their inclusion within the South 

Coast Air Basin. These two tribes have recently 

submitted boundary redesignation requests to EPA 

for which EPA is considering appropriate action. 

14EPA has not yet taken action on the 2007 

Ozone Plan, which was submitted to EPA on 

November 17, 2007 by the State of California as a 

revision to the California SIP. We will take action 

on the 2007 Ozone plan in a separate rulemaking. 

When we do take action on the plan, EPA will make 

a determination as to whether the plan provides for 

expeditious attainment and meets the other 

requirements for RFP, attainment, and contingency 

measures (and other measures required under the 

extreme classification). 

15The 2007 AQMP was submitted to EPA on 

November 28, 2007 as a revision to the California 

SIP. EPA is not making a determination in this 

document as to whether the plan provides for 

expeditious attainment and meets the other 

requirements for RFP, attainment, and contingency 

measures (and other measures required under the 

extreme classification) but will do so in a separate 

rulemaking when we take action on the 2007 AQMP 

as required under the CAA. 

consideration for reclassifying Indian 

country within the larger nonattainment 

areas.13 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 area and thus 

to reclassify the Indian country 

consistent with the State’s request for 

the portion of the area within State 

jurisdiction. On the other hand, if 

meeting the attainment date were still a 

reasonable possibility, then it 

conceivably may be appropriate for EPA 

to decide to defer reclassification of 

Indian country notwithstanding the 

State’s request for reclassification of the 

portion of the nonattainment area 

subject to State Clean Air Act programs 

and notwithstanding the generally 

weighty considerations discussed above 

that support the retention of a single 

uniformly-classified nonattainment area 

as opposed to the creation of islands of 

differently-classified nonattainment 

areas within the larger nonattainment 

area. Depending on the circumstances, 

other factors may also provide 

justifications for refraining from 

reclassifying Indian country in 

conjunction with granting a State’s 

request for voluntary reclassification of 

State lands in the same nonattainment 

area. 

With respect to the areas that are the 

subject of this proposed action, we have 

evaluated the likelihood of attainment 

by the area’s existing attainment 

deadline, based on information that is 

currently available. This evaluation was 

aided by the fact that CARB has already 

submitted attainment demonstrations 

for these four areas that are intended to 

support later attainment dates under a 

new, higher classification. In the 

discussion that follows, EPA is not 

determining which new attainment date 

is as expeditious as practicable nor 

whether these demonstrations are 

approvable. 

San Joaquin Valley. For San Joaquin 

Valley under the current classification 

(‘‘serious’’), the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

attainment date is as expeditious as 

practicable but not later than June 15, 

2013 (i.e., nine years from the effective 

date of designation). The San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District’s San Joaquin Valley 2007 

Ozone Plan (April 30, 2007) (‘‘2007 

Ozone Plan’’) contains information on 

current ozone levels, emissions trends, 

and the attainment strategy, and 

provides a basis for assessing the 

likelihood of attainment prior to June 

15, 2013. 

The 2007 Ozone Plan describes the 

meteorological and topographic factors 

that exacerbate ozone conditions within 

San Joaquin Valley and that make efforts 

to improve air quality particularly 

challenging. It shows that current ozone 

levels are well above the NAAQS at 

many locations within the Valley. It 

projects, based on the results of 

photochemical modeling, that 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

throughout the Valley will require an 

additional decrease from existing levels 

of 75% in NOX emissions. Most of these 

reductions are expected to occur from 

regulatory measures already adopted or 

expected to be adopted in the relatively 

near future, but the emissions 

reductions benefits from many of the 

measures, particularly those related to 

mobile sources, rely on vehicle turnover 

and thus take years to reach their full 

potential. Thus, based on the 

information currently available, it 

appears likely that the area will not 

attain by June 15, 2013. 

The State has requested 

reclassification of San Joaquin Valley to 

‘‘extreme,’’ which would extend the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS attainment date by 

11 years to no later than June 15, 2024. 

The plan indicates that attainment by 

June 15, 2019, the attainment date for 

the next higher classification (i.e., 

‘‘severe-15’’), is also unlikely given the 

magnitude of emissions reductions 

needed for attainment and the reliance 

on vehicle turnover.14 In addition, it 

highlights the need for the highest level 

of air pollution control to attain the 

ozone NAAQS within the Valley, and 

for ozone, the highest level of control is 

triggered by a classification of 

‘‘extreme.’’ Therefore, in light of the 

considerations outlined above that 

support retention of a uniformlyclassified ozone nonattainment area, 

and additional circumstances arguing 

for an attainment date well beyond the 

date applicable under the current 

classification, we propose to reclassify 

the Indian country areas within the San 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area to 

‘‘extreme.’’ 

South Coast. For South Coast under 

the current classification (‘‘severe-17’’), 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment 

date is as expeditious as practicable but 

not later than June 15, 2021 (i.e., 17 

years from the effective date of 

designation). We have reviewed the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District’s Final 2007 Air Quality 

Management Plan (June 2007) (‘‘2007 

AQMP’’) for information on current 

ozone levels, emissions trends, and the 

attainment strategy to assess the 

likelihood of attainment prior to June 

15, 2021. 

The 2007 AQMP describes current 

ozone conditions and the magnitude of 

the emissions reductions that would be 

needed to attain the ozone NAAQS. 

Despite an extensive array of measures 

already adopted and implemented to 

reduce stationary, area and mobile 

emissions sources, the plan’s modeling 

analysis projects that the South Coast 

would still need to reduce emissions by 

approximately 120 tons per year of VOC 

and 400 tons per year of NOX from new 

measures to attain the standard. Given 

the extent to which sources have 

already been regulated in the South 

Coast, the 2007 AQMP relies on new 

and advanced control technologies, 

referred to as ‘‘black box’’ measures, to 

reach the lower level of emissions 

needed for attainment, and such 

measures necessarily require more lead 

time than control technologies already 

in use. Thus, based on the information 

currently available, it appears likely that 

additional time beyond 2021 will be 

necessary to attain the standard.15

The State has requested 

reclassification of South Coast to the 

next higher level, i.e., to ‘‘extreme,’’ 

which would extend the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS attainment date by 3 years to no 

later than June 15, 2024. In light of the 

considerations outlined above that 

support retention of a uniformlyclassified ozone nonattainment area, 

and the information supporting an 

attainment date beyond the date 

applicable under the current 

classification, we propose to reclassify 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43661 

16The Coachella Valley 8-hour ozone plan is 

included within the 2007 AQMP, which was 

submitted to EPA on November 28, 2007 as a 

revision to the California SIP. EPA is not making 

a determination in this document as to whether the 

plan provides for expeditious attainment and meets 

the other requirements for RFP, attainment, and 

contingency measures (and other measures required 

under the severe-15 classification) but will do so in 

a separate rulemaking when we take action on the 

2007 AQMP as required under the CAA. 

17The 2008 Sacramento Ozone Plan was 

submitted to EPA on April 17, 2009 as a revision 

to the California SIP. EPA is not making a 

determination in this document as to whether the 

plan provides for expeditious attainment and meets 

the other requirements for RFP, attainment, and 

contingency measures (and other measures required 

under the severe-15 classification) but will do so in 

a separate rulemaking when we take action on the 

2008 Sacramento Ozone Plan as required under the 

CAA. 

the Indian country areas within the 

South Coast to ‘‘extreme.’’ 

Coachella Valley. For Coachella 

Valley under the current classification 

(‘‘serious’’), the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

attainment date is as expeditious as 

practicable but not later than June 15, 

2013 (i.e., nine years from the effective 

date of designation). We have reviewed 

chapter 8 (‘‘Future Air Quality—Desert 

Nonattainment Areas’’) of the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District’s 

Final 2007 Air Quality Management 

Plan (June 2007) (‘‘2007 AQMP’’) for 

information on current ozone levels, 

emissions trends, and the likelihood of 

attainment prior to June 15, 2013. 

The 2007 AQMP describes the nature 

of the ozone problem in Coachella 

Valley as primarily a function of 

transport of ozone and ozone precursors 

in the Valley from the upwind South 

Coast. The modeling analysis conducted 

for the 2007 AQMP shows a gradual 

decline in ozone concentrations in the 

wake of declining emissions in the 

South Coast, but indicates that the pace 

of the reductions would not result in 

ozone concentrations that meet the 

NAAQS until after 2013.16

The State has requested 

reclassification of Coachella Valley to 

the next higher level, i.e., to ‘‘severe15,’’ which would extend the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS attainment date by 6 

years to no later than June 15, 2019. In 

light of the considerations outlined 

above that support retention of a 

uniformly-classified ozone 

nonattainment area and the information 

supporting an attainment date beyond 

the date applicable under the current 

classification, we propose to reclassify 

the Indian country areas within 

Coachella Valley to ‘‘severe-15.’’ 

Sacramento Metro. For Sacramento 

Metro under the current classification 

(‘‘serious’’), the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

attainment date is as expeditious as 

practicable but not later than June 15, 

2013 (i.e., nine years from the effective 

date of designation). We have reviewed 

the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment and Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan (December 19, 2008) 

(‘‘2008 Sacramento Ozone Plan’’) for 

information on current ozone levels, 

emissions trends, and the likelihood of 

attainment prior to June 15, 2013. 

The 2008 Sacramento Ozone Plan 

presents emissions inventories for 

existing conditions and projects 

baseline emissions for various future 

years. These inventories show that 

mobile sources (on-road and non-road) 

contribute approximately 60% of the 

total VOC and 90% of the total NOX in 

this nonattainment area. Given the 

predominance of mobile source 

emissions in the overall inventory, the 

plan concludes that the region needs to 

rely on the longer term emission 

reductions strategies from state and 

federal mobile source control programs 

and that, as a result, the 2013 attainment 

date cannot be met.17

The State has requested 

reclassification of Sacramento Metro to 

the next higher level, i.e., to ‘‘severe15,’’ which would extend the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS attainment date by 6 

years to no later than June 15, 2019. In 

light of the considerations outlined 

above that support retention of a 

uniformly-classified ozone 

nonattainment area and the information 

supporting an attainment date beyond 

the date applicable under the current 

classification, we propose to reclassify 

the Indian country areas within 

Sacramento Metro to ‘‘severe-15.’’ 

3. Effects of Reclassifications on Indian 

Tribes 

For the Tribes whose Indian country 

lies within the four subject 

nonattainment areas, the effect of 

reclassification would be to lower the de 

minimis threshold under EPA’s General 

Conformity rule (40 CFR part 53, 

subpart B) as described above in section 

II.E of this document. As also noted in 

section II.E of this document, 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. Such permits, approvals or 

funding by Federal agencies for projects 

in these areas of Indian country may be 

more difficult to attain because of the 

lower de minimis thresholds. 

With respect to review of new or 

modified major stationary sources 

(‘‘new source review’’) and Title V 

operating permits, the proposed 

reclassifications would not lower the 

applicable ‘‘major source’’ thresholds 

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 standard (see South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) 

rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245 

(clarifying that the vacatur was limited 

to the issues on which the court granted 

the petitions for review)), 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 (see Table 1 of this 

document). 

EPA implements NSR in Indian 

country areas located within designated 

nonattainment areas unless EPA has 

approved an NSR program for such 

areas. Where EPA is the implementing 

agency, EPA implements NSR through 

promulgation of a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) establishing 

an NSR program in a given Indian 

country area. EPA has not promulgated 

an NSR FIP for any of the areas of 

Indian country in the four subject 

nonattainment areas. EPA could 

promulgate an NSR FIP for any given 

Indian country area within the four 

subject nonattainment areas if a new or 

modified major stationary source were 

to locate within these areas, but such a 

FIP would be based on the same major 

source applicability thresholds 

regardless of whether the Indian country 

areas are reclassified, as explained 

above. 

On August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48696), 

EPA proposed a FIP that would extend 

Appendix S (‘‘Emission Offset 

Interpretive Ruling’’) in 40 CFR part 51 

to Indian country within nonattainment 

areas until replaced by an EPAapproved NSR implementation plan for 

a given area of Indian country. 

Extension of Appendix S to Indian 

country would alleviate the potential 

necessity for EPA to promulgate areaspecific NSR FIPs for Indian country 

located within the four subject 

nonattainment areas. Please refer to our 

August 21, 2006 proposed rule for a 

detailed explanation of NSR in 

nonattainment areas of Indian country 

(71 FR 48696, at 48718–48719). Until 

EPA finalizes action to extend 

Appendix S to Indian country, EPA may 

find it necessary or appropriate to 

promulgate area-specific NSR FIPs for 

Indian country within the four subject 

nonattainment areas, depending upon 

the emissions potential of any proposed 

new or modified stationary sources in 

these Indian country areas. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
43662 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

18The 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 

unrelated to attainment that are based on its current 

8-hour ozone classification. 

C. Setting Deadlines for Submitting SIP 

Revisions 

For the reasons discussed below for 

each area, we are proposing SIP 

submission deadlines for the areas and 

SIP revisions shown in Table 3.18

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF SIP REVISION SUBMITTAL DEADLINES

8-Hour ozone nonattainment area Proposed 

classification 8-Hour ozone SIP element Submittal due date 

Coachella Valley ..................................... Severe-15 ............. CAA Section 185 fees .......................... No later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification. 

Sacramento Metro .................................. Severe-15 ............. NSR (Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather River AQMD only).

No later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification. 

CAA Section 185 fees (El Dorado 

County AQMD, Placer County 

APCD, Feather River AQMD, and 

Yolo-Solano AQMD only).

No later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification. 

San Joaquin Valley. As noted above in 

section II.D.2 of this document, CARB 

has submitted SIP revisions addressing 

all of the additional SIP requirements 

for San Joaquin Valley consistent with 

reclassification from ‘‘serious’’ to 

‘‘extreme.’’ EPA therefore is not 

proposing a schedule for additional SIP 

revisions in response to the 

reclassification of this area. 

South Coast Air Basin. As noted 

above in section II.D.2 of this document, 

CARB has submitted SIP revisions 

addressing all of the additional SIP 

requirements for the South Coast Air 

Basin consistent with reclassification 

from ‘‘severe-17’’ to ‘‘extreme.’’ EPA 

therefore is not proposing a schedule for 

additional SIP revisions in response to 

the reclassification of this area. 

Coachella Valley. As noted above in 

section II.D.2 of this document, CARB 

has submitted SIP revisions addressing 

all of the additional SIP requirements 

for Coachella Valley consistent with 

reclassification from ‘‘serious’’ to 

‘‘severe-15,’’ except for the major 

stationary source fees requirement 

under CAA section 185. EPA is 

proposing to establish a deadline of no 

later than 12 months from the effective 

date of reclassification for submittal of 

a revision to the Coachella Valley 

portion of the SIP that meets the major 

stationary source fees requirement 

under CAA section 185. 

Sacramento Metro. As noted above in 

section II.D.2 of this document, CARB 

has submitted SIP revisions addressing 

all but two of the additional SIP 

requirements for the Sacramento Metro 

area consistent with reclassification 

from ‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘severe-15.’’ CARB 

has not submitted new source review 

rules for certain air districts within the 

Sacramento Metro area consistent with 

the ‘‘severe-15’’ ozone classification. 

EPA is proposing to establish a deadline 

of no later than 12 months from the 

effective date of reclassification for 

submittal of revisions to the Sacramento 

Metro portion of the SIP that meet the 

additional new source review 

requirements for a ‘‘severe-15’’ 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area for 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Placer 

County APCD, and Feather River 

AQMD. CARB has also not submitted 

SIP revisions addressing the CAA 

section 185 fees requirement for four of 

the five districts within the Sacramento 

Metro area, including El Dorado County 

AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather 

River AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. 

EPA is proposing the same deadline for 

the CAA section 185 fees requirement as 

for the ‘‘severe-15’’ NSR requirement 

discussed above. 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3) 

and 40 CFR 51.903(b), EPA proposes 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 ‘‘severe15,’’ and to change the table for 8-hour 

ozone in 40 CFR 81.305 accordingly. 

In connection with the 

reclassifications, EPA is proposing 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 fees requirement. EPA is 

also proposing 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: new source 

review rules consistent with this 

classification (Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD, Placer County APCD, and 

Feather River AQMD only) and CAA 

section 185 fees (El Dorado County 

AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather 

River AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD 

only). EPA has already received SIP 

revision submittals addressing most of 

the additional SIP requirements for 

these two areas and has received all of 

the related SIP revision submittals for 

San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast 

Air Basin. EPA is not proposing a SIP 

revision schedule for any SIP 

requirements for which SIP submittals 

have already been received. 

Finally, consistent with our 

discretionary authority under CAA 

sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4), we 

propose to similarly reclassify Indian 

country within the four areas consistent 

with the reclassification requests for the 

surrounding non-Indian country lands 

and have invited consultation with 

interested tribes concerning this issue. 

We note that although eligible tribes 

may seek EPA approval of relevant 

tribal programs under the CAA, none of 

the affected tribes will be required to 

submit an implementation plan to 

address these reclassifications. 

EPA requests public comment on this 

proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

Executive Order 12866. Voluntary 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43663 

reclassifications under 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. For this 

reason, this proposed 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 

proposed 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 proposed 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. 

Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 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 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. EPA has concluded that this 

proposed rule might have tribal 

implications for the purposes of 

Executive Order 13175, but would not 

impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. 

As discussed in section III.B.3 of this 

document, the proposed rule would not 

affect implementation of new source 

review for new or modified stationary 

sources proposed 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 attain 

because of the lower de minimis 

thresholds triggered by reclassification. 

Given the potential implications, EPA 

contacted tribal officials early in the 

process of developing this proposed 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 21 tribes with 

Indian country areas in the four subject 

nonattainment areas seeking their input 

on how we could best communicate 

with the tribes on the rulemaking effort. 

We received responses from nine tribes, 

of whom four indicated interest in faceto-face meetings, as one of several 

means of communication. We have met 

with two tribes that sought specific 

meetings on the reclassifications: 

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission 

Indians and Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians. We propose to continue with 

this process of communicating with the 

tribes until we promulgate the final rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

This proposed 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, or 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 

proposed action does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

This proposed 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 

Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This proposed 

action is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because it grants a voluntary 

reclassification, and EPA’s approval is 

mandatory. 

As discussed above, a voluntary 

reclassification under section 181(b)(3) 

of the CAA is based solely on the 

request of a State and EPA is required 

to grant such a request. In this context, 

it would be inconsistent with applicable 

law for EPA, when it grants a State’s 

request for a voluntary reclassification, 

to use voluntary consensus standards. 

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 proposed 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. As 

stated earlier in this proposed rule, EPA 

is proposing action granting the State’s 

requests for voluntary reclassifications. 

The plain language of section 181(b)(3) 

of the CAA mandates that we ‘‘shall’’ 

approve such a request if it is made in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Act, and, as such, does not provide the 

Agency with the discretionary authority 

to address concerns raised outside the 

Act, including those contained in 

Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, National parks, Ozone, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: August 18, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–20732 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS