```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 165 (Thursday, August 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43654-43663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20732]

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

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).

[[Page 43655]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''

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: [email protected].
    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 e-mail 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, 
[email protected].

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.

[[Page 43656]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Today'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 anti-
backsliding 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The design value for 8-hour ozone is defined at 40 CFR 
51.900(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Status of SIP Submittals
    Table 1 presents the 1-hour ozone classification (i.e., at the time 
of

[[Page 43657]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ From the standpoint of SIP submittal requirements, there is 
no distinction between the ``severe-15'' classification and the 
``severe-17'' classification.

                               Table 1--Existing and Future Ozone Classifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             1-Hour ozone        Existing 8-hour ozone    Requested 8-hour ozone
   8-Hour ozone nonattainment area          classification           classification           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 ``severe-17'' 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 ``severe-
15.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CARB'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

[[Page 43658]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On 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 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.
    \7\ The 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.
    \8\ CARB 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 43659]]

                      Table 2--Indian Tribes Located in Areas Subject to Reclassifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        San Joaquin Valley                South Coast             Coachella Valley          Sacramento Metro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono        Cahuilla Band of Indians   Agua Caliente Band of     United Auburn Indian
 Indians (including the Big Sandy   (including the Cahuilla    Cahuilla Indians          Community (including
 Rancheria).                        Reservation).              (including the Agua       the Auburn Rancheria).
                                                               Caliente Indian
                                                               Reservation).
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono     Morongo Band of Mission    Augustine Band of         Rumsey Indian Rancheria
 Indians (including the Cold        Indians (including the     Cahuilla Mission          of Wintun Indians
 Springs Rancheria).                Morongo Reservation).      Indians (including the    (including the Rumsey
                                                               Augustine Reservation).   Indian Rancheria).
North Fork Rancheria of Mono       Pechanga Band of           Cabazon Band of Mission   Shingle Springs Band of
 Indians (including the North       Luise[ntilde]o Mission     Indians (including the    Miwok Indians
 Fork Rancheria).                   Indians (including the     Cabazon Reservation).     [including the Shingle
                                    Pechanga Reservation).                               Springs Rancheria
                                                                                         (Verona Tract)].
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi   Ramona Band of Cahuilla    Torres Martinez Desert
 Indians (including the Picayune    (including the Ramona      Cahuilla Indians
 Rancheria).                        Band).                     (including the Torres-
                                                               Martinez Reservation).
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut   San Manuel Band of
 Tribe (including the Santa Rosa    Serrano Mission Indians
 Rancheria).                        (including the San
                                    Manuel Reservation).
Table Mountain Rancheria           Santa Rosa Band of
 (including the Table Mountain      Cahuilla Mission Indians
 Rancheria).                        (including the Santa
                                    Rosa Reservation).
Tule River Indian Tribe            Soboba Band of
 (including the Tule River          Luise[ntilde]o Mission
 Reservation).                      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 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. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Consistent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 43660]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
Luise[ntilde]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
uniformly-classified 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
uniformly-classified ozone nonattainment area, and the information 
supporting an attainment date beyond the date applicable under the 
current classification, we propose to reclassify

[[Page 43661]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has requested reclassification of Coachella Valley to the 
next higher level, i.e., to ``severe-15,'' 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 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 State has requested reclassification of Sacramento Metro to the 
next higher level, i.e., to ``severe-15,'' 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 EPA-approved 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 area-specific 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.

[[Page 43662]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Proposed
  8-Hour ozone nonattainment area       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             No later than 12 months
                                                            Metropolitan AQMD, Placer   from the effective date
                                                            County APCD, Feather        of reclassification.
                                                            River AQMD only).
                                                           CAA Section 185 fees (El    No later than 12 months
                                                            Dorado County AQMD,         from the effective date
                                                            Placer County APCD,         of reclassification.
                                                            Feather River AQMD, and
                                                            Yolo-Solano AQMD only).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 unrelated to 
attainment that are based on its current 8-hour ozone 
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ``severe-15,'' 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

[[Page 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 face-to-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 Luise[ntilde]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
```