ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0467; FRL- ] Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purpo ses; California; San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Bas in, Coachella Valley, and Sacramento Metro 8-hour Ozone Nonattain ment Areas;

Reclassification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA is gra nting requests by the State of California to reclassify t he following four areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS): the San Joaquin Valley area from “serious” to “extreme,” the South Coast Air Basin area from “severe-17” to “extreme,” and the C oachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from “serious” to “severe-15.” In connection with the reclassifications, EPA is se tting a deadline of no later than 12 months from the effect ive date of reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Sacramento Metro area portion of the California State Implemen tation Plan (SIP) to meet the additional new source review (NSR ) requirements for “severe-15” 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. E PA is deferring the setting of a submittal deadline for c ertain fee rules under section 185 of the CAA.2

A number of Indian tribes have Indian country 1 located within the boundaries of the affected areas. The St ate of California is not approved to administer any CAA pr ograms in Indian country, and the relevant Indian tribes have not applied for eligibility to administer programs under the CA A for their areas. In these circumstances, EPA implements relev ant reclassification provisions of the CAA in these Ind ian country areas and is reclassifying these areas, except Indi an country pertaining to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians ( “Morongo Tribe”) and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission In dians (“Pechanga Tribe”), in keeping with the classificat ions of nonattainment areas within which they are located. EPA is deferring the reclassification of Indian country pe rtaining to the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes pending EPA’s final decisions on their previously-submitted boundary change requests . In connection with this final action, EPA notified the affected tribal leaders and consulted with interested tribes

. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: Insert date 30 days from the date of public ation in the Federal Register ].

1 “Indian country” as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 ref ers to: “(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under t he jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issua nce of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reserva tion, (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 a llotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, includi ng rights-of-way running3

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2008-

0467 for this action. The index to the docket is av ailable 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 h ard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., confid ential business information). To inspect the hard copy mat erials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hour s with the

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Deferral of SIP Submittal Deadlines for CAA Se ction 185 Fee

Rules III. Deferral of Reclassification for Morongo Band of Mission Indians and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indian s

through the same.”4

IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action On August 27, 2009 (74 FR 43654), we proposed to gr ant the following reclassification requests by the State of California: the San Joaquin Valley area from “serious” to “extr eme,” the South Coast Air Basin area from “severe-17” to “ext reme,” and the Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from “s erious” to

“severe-15.” We proposed approval of these requests under sectio n 181(b)(3) of the CAA, which provides for “voluntary reclassification” and states: “The Administrator sh all 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 Administrat or shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of any such request and of action by the Administrator granting the request .” The provision for voluntary reclassification has been b rought forward as part of the transition from the 1-hour ozone sta ndard to the 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.903(b) (“A Sta te may request a higher classification for any reason in accordanc e with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA”) and 40 CFR 51.903(a) Table 1

.5

For each of the four areas, we compared a list of t he specific additional requirements that would be trig gered for each area as a consequence of our approval of the reclas sification requests with the revisions to the SIP that the Sta te of California had already submitted. For any requireme nt in any area lacking a submittal from the State, we proposed a d eadline for submission. Based on this evaluation, we proposed to establish a deadline of no later than 12 months from the effect ive date of reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Coachella Valley portion of the SIP to meet the CAA section 1 85 fee requirements (“section 185 fee rules”). EPA also pr oposed the same deadline for submittal of revisions to the Sac ramento Metro area portion of the SIP to meet the following addit ional SIP requirements for “severe-15” areas: NSR rules consi stent with this classification (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qu ality Management District (AQMD), Placer County Air Pollu tion Control District (APCD), and Feather River AQMD only) and s ection 185 fee rules (El Dorado County AQMD, Placer County APCD, F eather River AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD only). As discussed in s ection II of this final rule, EPA has decided to defer setting a SIP submittal deadline for section 185 fee rules. In our proposed rule, we considered the relevance o f the State’s reclassification requests to reclassificati on of Indian6

country located within the four nonattainment areas . We proposed to directly administer CAA section 181(b)(3) and re classify Indian country geographically located in the nonatt ainment areas that are the subject of the State’s reclassificatio n requests in order to avoid inappropriate and infeasible results , consistent with EPA’s discretionary authority in CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to directly administer CAA programs and t o protect air quality in Indian country through federal implement ation. In so doing, we explained why uniformity of classif ication throughout a nonattainment area is a guiding princi ple and premise when an area is being reclassified. We note d that groundlevel ozone continues to be a pervasive pollution p roblem in areas throughout the United States and that ozone a nd precursor pollutants that cause ozone can be transported thro ughout a nonattainment area. Therefore, boundaries for nonat tainment areas are drawn to encompass both the areas that violate the NAAQS as well as nearby contributing areas. For certain area s designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, such a s those to which this action applies, initial classifications occur by operation of law and exactly match the boundaries o f the respective nonattainment areas. We believe that thi s approach best ensures public health protection from the adve rse effects of ozone pollution and that, therefore, it is generall y counterproductive from an air quality and planning perspective to7

have a disparate classification for a land area loc ated within the boundaries of a nonattainment area, such as the Indian country contained in the ozone nonattainment areas at issue here. Moreover, we noted that violations of the 8-hour oz one standard, which are measured and modeled throughout each nona ttainment area, as well as shared meteorological conditions, would dictate the same result. Furthermore, emissions changes in lowerclassified ozone areas could hinder planning effort s to attain the NAAQS within the overall area through the appli cation of less stringent requirements relative to those that apply in the areas with higher ozone classifications. With regard to the Indian country at issue in our p roposed action, EPA also took into account other factors. F or example, we proposed that the likelihood of attainment by the a pplicable deadline under the current classification is an app ropriate consideration for reclassifying Indian country with in the larger nonattainment areas. If EPA believes it is likely t hat a given ozone nonattainment area will not attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, then it may be an addit ional reason why it is appropriate to maintain a uniform classif ication within the nonattainment area and thus to reclassify the I ndian country consistent with the State’s request to reclassify t he non-Indian country portion of the area. On the other hand, if EPA believes that meeting the original attainment date for the w hole8

nonattainment area appears still to be a reasonable possibility, then it conceivably might be appropriate for EPA to decline to reclassify Indian country, notwithstanding the Stat e’s request to reclassify the State portion of the area, and notwi thstanding the generally weighty considerations that support the r etention of a single uniformly-classified nonattainment area. Suc h considerations include the pervasive nature of the ozone problem, and the transport of ozone and ozone precursors ove r a wide geographic area. Depending on the circumstances, ot her factors might also provide justifications for refraining fr om reclassifying Indian country in conjunction with gr anting a State’s request for voluntary reclassification of S tate areas in the same nonattainment area. With respect to the four subject areas, we evaluate d the likelihood of attainment by the area’s existing att ainment deadline, based on information that is currently av ailable. That evaluation was aided by the fact that the State of California has already submitted attainment demonstrations for the se four areas that are intended to support later attainment dates under their requested new, higher classifications. We also note d that EPA was not determining which new attainment date is as exp editious as practicable for each area, nor whether these attain ment demonstrations are approvable.9

In light of the considerations we outlined in our p roposal and reiterated above that support retention of unif ormlyclassified ozone nonattainment areas, and the evide nce (in the form of plan submittals for the four areas) that pr ovides support for an attainment date beyond the date applicable u nder the current classifications, we proposed to reclassify the Indian country within each area 2 as follows: areas within San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin to “extreme”, and areas within Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro to “severe-15 .” As discussed in section III of this final rule, EPA ha s decided to defer reclassification of Indian country pertaining to the Morongo Tribe and the Pechanga Tribe pending EPA’s final decisions on their boundary change requests. Please see our August 27, 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 43654) for additional background and a more detailed expla nation of our proposed action.

2 In section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule, we identified the tribes with Indian country in each of the four subj ect nonattainment areas. In so doing, we inadvertently failed to identify two t ribes that have Indian country in Coachella Valley: the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. EPA had invited both tribes to consult with EPA regarding prospective EPA action t o reclassify Indian country within five nonattainment areas in California, incl uding the four areas subject to today’s action as well as Western Mojave Desert. (As noted in footnote #8 of the preamble to the proposed rule, E PA plans to take action related to California’s reclassification request fo r Western Mojave Desert in a separate rulemaking.) Since we inadvertently fail ed to identify these two Tribes as having Indian country in Coachella Valley in section III.B of the proposed rule, we contacted them to clarify that ou r proposal to reclassify Indian country areas within Coachella Valley to “se vere-15” relates to all Indian country located therein nothwithstanding the incomplete list of such areas in section III.B of the proposal. Neither Tri be has responded to EPA’s invitation to consult nor expressed either their as sent or objection to reclassification of their lands in Coachella Valley in response to our10

II. Deferral of SIP Submittal Deadlines for CAA Sec tion 185 Fee

Rules In our August 27, 2009 proposed rule, we proposed t o set a deadline of no later than 12 months from the effect ive date of the final reclassifications for the State of Califo rnia to submit revisions to the SIP to address CAA section 185 fee requirements for certain 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas: Coach ella Valley and Sacramento Metro (El Dorado County AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather River AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD only). Upon further consideration, we have decided to def er the setting of a deadline for submittal of a SIP revisi on addressing the section 185 fee requirements for any area affec ted by this action. Under CAA section 185, the obligation to co llect fees could not be triggered until after an area fails to attain the NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. Assuming t hat the maximum period for attainment represents the date f or which attainment is as “expeditious as practicable” in th e areas subject to the new 8-hour classifications under tod ay’s rulemaking, the obligation to collect fees under an y fee rule submitted to comply with section 185 could not poss ibly be due until after June 15, 2019 (for Sacramento Metro and Coachella Valley) or after June 15, 2024 (for San Joaquin Val ley and the

contacts on this matter.11

South Coast). EPA recently issued guidance regardin g 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding fee programs 3 but has not yet completed its consideration of the relationship between 1-hour an d 8-hour fee programs for these areas. There is at present no im mediate need to set a deadline for submission of the 8-hour fees SIP program as we believe that there will be sufficient time fo r EPA to establish a SIP revision deadline for this requirem ent and for the State of California to develop and submit the n ecessary fee

rules. 4 Indeed, in a previous EPA action granting a reques t for voluntary reclassification of the Houston-Galveston -Brazoria (Texas) 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to “severe- 15”, EPA also deferred setting a deadline for the section 185 fee SIP submission. See 73 FR 56983 (October 1, 2008), espe cially

footnote 1.

III. Deferral of Reclassification for Morongo Band of Mission Indians and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indian s As described in section I (“Proposed Action”) above , in our August 27, 2009 proposed rule, we proposed to direc tly administer CAA section 181(b)(3) and reclassify Indian country within the

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

.12

four subject areas in keeping with the State’s recl assification requests for the surrounding non-Indian country lan ds and consistent with EPA’s discretionary authority in CA A section 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to directly administer CAA pro grams and protect air quality in Indian country through feder al implementation. For the South Coast Air Basin nonat tainment area, we named seven tribes whose Indian country would be reclassified

to “extreme” for 8-hour ozone. Two of these tribes, the Morongo and Pechanga Tribe s, submitted comments on our proposed action in which they objected to being reclassified to “extreme.” (See section IV (“Public Comments and EPA Responses”) below.) In their comme nt letters, the Tribes reiterated their requests from May 29, 2 009 and June 23, 2009, respectively, for boundary changes to est ablish separate nonattainment areas or, in the alternative , to extend the boundaries of adjacent, lower-classified nonatt ainment areas to include the Tribes’ Indian country. We refer to these requests herein as “boundary change” requests. The Tribes’ c omment letters also provided substantive analyses to support their objections to reclassification that largely mirror their boundary change requests. In both cases, the Tribes specifically re quest that no change be made to the classification of their respe ctive Indian country located within the South Coast Air Basin pe nding EPA’s final decisions regarding the Tribes’ boundary chan ge requests.13

Upon consideration of these comments, we have decid ed to defer the reclassification of the Indian country pe rtaining to the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes within the South Co ast Air Basin (“the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations”) to “extre me” for the 8- hour ozone standard, pending our final decisions on the Tribes’ boundary change requests to avoid any inconsistency that might result from reclassification of the Morongo and Pec hanga Reservations and decisions addressing the Tribes’ b oundary change requests. We believe that this deferral will avoid confounding our further consideration of the Tribes’ boundary c hange requests. If we grant a boundary change for either Tribe, we will specify the consequence of such action in a separat e rulemaking on the designation and classification of that Tribe ’s Reservation. If we deny a boundary change request f or either Tribe, we will take final action on our August 27, 2009 proposal to reclassify that Tribe’s Reservation to “extreme” , consistent with the rest of the nonattainment area, after due consideration of the Tribe’s submitted comments. Until those sepa rate actions are finalized, the Indian country of the Morongo an d Pechanga Tribes in the South Coast Air Basin area will retai n a classification of “severe-17” for the 1997 8-hour o zone NAAQS. This deferral of our decisions on reclassification is limited in scope to the Morongo and Pechanga Reserv ations, and in14

time only until EPA finalizes our decisions on thes e Tribes’ boundary change requests. We are finalizing the rec lassification of all other Indian country in the four subject are as to higher classifications in keeping with the State’s reclass ification requests, including the five other Tribes we listed in our proposed rule as having Indian country within the S outh Coast Air Basin. (See section V (“Final Action”) below.)

IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses The publication of EPA’s proposed rule on August 2 7, 2009 (74 FR 43654) started a public comment period that ended on September 28, 2009. During this period, we received a comment letter from the Morongo Tribe, and an anonymous com ment letter. We also accepted a comment letter received from the Pechanga Tribe on October 6, 2009, after the comment period had closed. In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize the commen ts from the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes and the anonymous comme nter, and provide our responses. Comment #1: The Morongo Tribe, in its comments, highlights its May 29, 2009 request to EPA (and accompanying r ationale and documentation) for the establishment of a separate nonattainment area for the Morongo Reservation or, in the alterna tive, for a boundary change to extend the western boundary of t he Coachella Valley nonattainment area to include the Morongo Re servation.15

With respect to the proposed reclassification of In dian country in the South Coast Air Basin, which includes the Mo rongo Reservation, to “extreme” for the 8-hour ozone NAAQ S, the Morongo Tribe objects to our proposal to reclassify the Mor ongo Reservation in the same manner as the South Coast A ir Basin. The Tribe argues that the Morongo Reservation should be treated as its own nonattainment area or, in the alternative, should be redesignated as part of the Coachella Valley nonatt ainment area, and thus retain its existing classification. The Pechanga Tribe similarly objects to the reclass ification of the Pechanga Reservation to “extreme,” consisten t with the reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin nonat tainment area. Like the Morongo Tribe, the Pechanga Tribe points t o its June 23, 2009 request to EPA (and accompanying rationale and documentation) for the establishment of a separate nonattainment area for the Pechanga Reservation or, in the altern ative, for a boundary change to extend the northern boundary of the San Diego Air Basin nonattainment area to include the entiret y of the Pechanga Reservation. The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes believe that the fa ctors used for initial area designations and for subseque nt reclassifications of those areas should be the same

. Specifically, the Tribes point to EPA’s December 20 08 guidance16

for area designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone NA AQS 5 as the appropriate guidance to apply in evaluating whether to include the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations in the reclas sification of the South Coast Air Basin to “extreme.” The Morongo Tribe asserts that EPA’s failure to use the December 2008 guidanc e in evaluating whether to include the Morongo Reservati on in the reclassification action appears to be an arbitrary and capricious exercise of EPA’s authority. The Pechanga Tribe ass erts that EPA’s failure to use that guidance in evaluating wh ether to include the Pechanga Reservation in the reclassific ation action ignores tribal interests. The Tribes contend that t he December 2008 guidance provides the factors 6 that EPA should have used for the proposed action with respect to the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations. They also include detailed evaluation s of the application of the factors from the December 2008 g uidance to their areas, as suggested by the 2008 guidance for determining nonattainment area boundaries in designations for t he 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 7

5 See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) for the 2008 Rev ised Ozone NAAQS. 6 See Attachment 2 of the memorandum from Robert J. Myers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, “Area Designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” December 4 , 2008. Attachment 2 is entitled, “Factors EPA Plans to Consider in Determi ning Nonattainment Area Boundaries in Designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS .” 7 EPA is in the process of reconsidering the 2008 8 -hour ozone NAAQS. As part of this process, EPA has proposed a revised ozone N AAQS (75 FR 2938, January 19, 2010) and extended the deadline for promulgatin g designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (75 FR 2936, January 19, 2010). Dependi ng on the outcome of this reconsideration, we may issue new guidance for dete rmining ozone nonattainment area boundaries.17

Based on these evaluations, the Tribes conclude tha t consideration of the factors from the December 2008 guidance supports a decision not to reclassify the Morongo a nd Pechanga Reservations along with the South Coast Air Basin, but rather to redesignate the Reservations as separate nonattainm ent areas and to retain each Reservation’s current classification

. Response #1 : We disagree that the EPA guidance on initial area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides the factors we must use in evaluating whether to reclassify Ind ian country located within a nonattainment area for which a Sta te has voluntarily requested reclassification. That guidan ce is intended to provide a consistent set of principles to apply in identifying the initial boundaries of nonattainment areas durin g the designations process. In contrast, once an area’s i nitial boundary is established, the retention of a single uniformlyclassified area becomes a guiding principle and pre mise in determining whether to reclassify Indian country lo cated within the area in light of a State’s voluntary request fo r such a reclassification of non-Indian country lands. We do believe, however, that the December 2008 guid ance is appropriate for use in supporting requests for boun dary changes, such as the requests submitted by the Morongo Tribe on May 29, 2009 and by the Pechanga Tribe on June 23, 2009. 8 As described in

8 EPA’s December 2008 guidance states that the fact ors, while generally18

section III of this final rule, we have decided to defer reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reserv ations pending our final decisions on their boundary change reques ts. We acknowledge the Tribe’s hypothesis that ozone nonattainment areas may be inherently defined by a single classification as well as a boundary and that retai ning the existing classification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations would have the effect of creating new ozone nonatta inment areas. Under this hypothesis, the application of EPA’s Dec ember 2008 guidance would be appropriate in evaluating whether to reclassify Indian country consistent with the State’s requests for reclassification of non-Indian country. However, us e of the guidance in this way is indistinguishable from reco nsidering the boundaries of the nonattainment areas themselves, a nd reconsideration of the boundaries is an action that we explicitly stated we would not be undertaking in the reclassif ication action. See footnote 13 on page 43660 of the preamb le to the proposed rule (74 FR 43654). We will, however, cons ider the Tribes’ nine-factor analyses in detail in our consi deration of their boundary change requests. With respect to the factors that we considered in e valuating the appropriateness of reclassification of Indian c ountry in our proposed rule, we provided a number of reasons supp orting our use

comprehensive, are not intended to be exhaustive. States and tribes may submit19

of the guiding principle and premise of uniformity of classification when an area is being reclassified ( see pages 43659 and 43660). In addition, we also identified c ertain circumstances when it might be appropriate to defer reclassification of Indian country, notwithstanding the State’s request to reclassify the State portion of the area , such as where an area is likely to attain the standard by t he attainment date under the existing classification. Thus, other considerations could outweigh the guiding principle and premise of uniformity of classification. Upon consideration of the circumstances in each area, however, we concluded t hat no such considerations exist in this instance in any of the four subject areas. Therefore, with the exception of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations for which are deferring final action, we are taking final action today to reclassify the Indian country in the four subject nonattainment areas to higher classificatio ns consistent with the State’s reclassification requests for thes e areas. Comment #2 : The Morongo Tribe asserts that the State of California has no jurisdiction to redesignate or re classify the Morongo Reservation; that, consequently, California ’s requests for reclassification have no legal import to the Re servation and cannot serve as the legal basis for the redesignati on or reclassification of tribal lands.

additional information they believe is relevant for EPA to consider.20

Response #2 : We agree that the State is not authorized to implement CAA programs in Indian country. The State ’s requests for reclassification of the four ozone nonattainmen t areas was the impetus for our proposed action, but did not fo rm the legal basis for our proposed action with respect to India n country contained therein. Under CAA section 181(b)(3), EPA must grant the requests of the State to reclassify the non-tri bal lands in the nonattainment areas. The question then becomes what EPA’s action should be with regard to the Indian country contained within these areas. In the preamble to our proposed rule, we described the legal authority we have relied upon t o reclassify Indian country in the four subject areas as follows : “Typically, states are not approved to administer p rograms under the CAA in Indian country, and California has not been approved by EPA to administer any CAA programs in I ndian country. CAA actions in Indian country would thus g enerally be taken either by EPA, or by an eligible Indian tr ibe itself under an EPA-approved program. In this insta nce, none of the affected tribes has applied under CAA sectio n 301(d) for treatment-in-a-similar-manner-as-a-state for pu rposes of reclassification requests under section 181(b)(3), and none operates any relevant EPA-approved CAA regulatory p rogram ( e.g. , a tribal implementation plan). In addition, the C AA does not require Indian tribes to develop and seek approval21

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 circum stances, EPA is the appropriate entity to administer relevan t CAA programs in Indian country. EPA is proposing to dir ectly administer CAA section 181(b)(3) and reclassify Ind ian country geographically located in the nonattainment areas that are the subject of the State’s reclassificatio n request, consistent with EPA’s discretionary author ity in CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to directly admin ister CAA programs and protect air quality in Indian country through federal implementation. Section 301(a) authorizes t he 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 t hat the treatment of Indian tribes as identical to Stat es is inappropriate or administratively infeasible, th e Administrator may provide, by regulation, other mea ns by which the Administrator will directly administer such provision so as to achieve the appropriate

purpose.22

While tribes may choose to apply for eligibility to adopt implementation plans and seek reclassification of t heir areas in a manner similar to states, tribes need no t do so.” See 74 FR 43654, at 43659 (August 27, 2009). In today’s action, we reaffirm the jurisdictional b asis for EPA’s authority to decide whether or not to reclass ify Indian country in ozone nonattainment areas in keeping wit h a State’s voluntary reclassification request, as per CAA sect ion 181(b)(3). As noted in section III of this final rule, we have decided to defer reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations pending our final decisions on their boundary chang e requests to avoid confounding our further consideration of the Tribes’ boundary change requests. For all other Indian coun try located within the four subject nonattainment areas, under the authorities cited above, we are taking final action today to reclassify such Indian country consistent with the State’s reclassification requests. Comment #3 : The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes assert that including the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations in the reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin to “e xtreme” will negatively impact the Tribe’s efforts to develop a tribal air permit program and to facilitate economic developme nt on the Reservation. The Pechanga Tribe believes that inclu ding the Pechanga Reservation in the reclassification of the South Coast23

Air Basin to “extreme” for the 8-hour ozone standar d would reduce the applicable “major source” threshold from 25 ton s per year, to 10 tons per year, of VOC or NO x . The Morongo Tribe states that the reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin t o “extreme” would further cement the 10 tons per year threshold that began to apply as of the 2003 boundary change that brought t he Morongo Reservation inside the South Coast Air Basin. This 10 tons per year threshold would, in the Tribes’ view, prevent the implementation of a meaningful minor source permitt ing program, increase the number of facilities potentially subje ct to “major source” new source review with a concomitant increa se in the use and cost of tribal staff and facility resources, an d increase the number of future facilities subject to title V Fede ral operating permit requirements. Response #3 : This comment refers specifically to major source thresholds in the South Coast Air Basin, but calls into question the effect of reclassification on major so urce thresholds for NSR and Title V purposes in Indian c ountry within each of the four subject nonattainment areas. We di sagree with the assertion that reclassification of Indian count ry in the South Coast Air Basin would change the applicable m ajor source threshold for NSR or Title V. Indeed, these thresho lds will not change in any of the four subject areas. As explain ed in detail on page 43661 of the preamble to the proposed rule, the24

applicable major source thresholds for NSR and Titl e V would not change due to reclassification because the threshol ds for the purposes of NSR and title V that had applied by vir tue of the areas’ classifications under the 1-hour ozone stand ard continue to apply as anti-backsliding measures under the 8-h our ozone standard, and the new 8-hour ozone classification f or each of the four subject areas, as reclassified, would be the s ame as each area’s corresponding 1-hour ozone classification. With respect to Indian country within the South Coa st Air Basin, including the Morongo and Pechanga Reservati ons, and within San Joaquin Valley, this means that the appl icable major source threshold for NSR and Title V purposes is al ready 10 tons per year for VOC or NO x , with or without reclassification to “extreme” for 8-hour ozone, because the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley are already “extreme” for th e 1-hour ozone standard. For Indian country within Coachella Valle y and Sacramento Metro, this means that the applicable ma jor source threshold for NSR and Title V purposes is already 2 5 tons per year for VOC or NO x . Thus, to the extent that a change in NSR major source threshold might affect economic develo pment prospects of any Tribe in one of the four subject n onattainment areas, today’s action would have no such effect sin ce it does not change the NSR major source threshold for any Tribe

.25

As noted previously, we are deferring reclassificat ion of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, but for the reasons provided above, neither reclassification to “extrem e” nor deferral of reclassification would affect the appli cable major source threshold for NSR and Title V purposes withi n the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations. The applicable major sou rce threshold is already 10 tons per year of VOC or NO x based on the classification of the South Coast Air Basin under t he 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Comment #4 : The Pechanga Tribe states that, for existing and future facilities subject to nonattainment NSR, the re is no system in place for facilities on tribal lands to o btain emission reduction credits. As such, these facilities, inclu ding those that are Native American-owned, would be at a disad vantage relative to facilities located outside of Indian co untry. Response #4 : In our Indian country NSR proposal (71 FR 48696, 8/21/2006) we noted that “[d]ue to the limit ed number of sources in Indian country, offsets are generally no t available. We have proposed options for addressing the lack of availability of offsets in Indian country.” However, for reasons given above in our response to comment #3, reclassification of Indian country within the four subject nonattainment areas would n ot affect the offset requirement that emission reduction credits (ERCs) are commonly used to meet. That is, since applicable NS R26

requirements, including the major source threshold definition and offset requirements, in the four subject areas are based on the areas’ classifications for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the new 8- hour ozone classification for each of the four subj ect areas, as reclassified, would be the same as the area’s corre sponding 1- hour ozone classification, reclassification would n ot change the offset requirement. Thus, the problem of the relati ve lack of available ERCs within the Indian country areas with in the four subject areas would not be affected by reclassifica tion. With respect to the Pechanga Tribe, we once again n ote that we are deferring reclassification of both the Moron go and Pechanga Reservations pending our decisions on thei r respective boundary change requests. However, such deferral ha s no bearing on the applicable NSR offset requirements within th ese two reservations, nor does it affect the relative lack of available ERCs. The current applicable offset ratio for VOC a nd NO x for the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations continues to be b ased on the classification of the South Coast Air Basin as “ext reme” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. (See CAA sections 182(e)(1) and 182(f) for offset requirements of “extreme” areas.) Comment #5 : The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes assert that reducing the threshold for the applicability of Gen eral Conformity requirements from 25 to 10 tons per year VOC or NO x would require many more projects to demonstrate tha t their27

emissions of criteria pollutants will not impede pr ogress toward attainment of the NAAQS. Response #5 : We agree that reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin, as proposed, would lower the appli cability threshold under our General Conformity rule from 25 tons per year to 10 tons per year. We also note that reclassifica tion of the other three nonattainment areas would also lower th e applicable de minimis thresholds under EPA’s General Conformit y rule in

those areas. As explained in the preamble of our proposed rule ( see pages 43658 and 43661), under EPA’s General Conformity ru le, Federal agencies bear the responsibility of determining con formity of actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. Therefore, not all projects undertaken by the Tribes are subject to th e General Conformity rule, but only those tribal projects tha t require Federal agency permits, approvals or funding. Moreo ver, the definition of “indirect emissions” in the General C onformity rule (see 40 CFR 93.152) further limits the reach of the rule by requiring that emissions caused by the action be re asonably foreseeable and of the type which the Federal agenc y can practicably control and can maintain control over d ue to a continuing program responsibility of the Federal ag ency.28

Furthermore, the potential impacts associated with any lowering of a General Conformity de minimis thresho ld are not unique to Federal actions proposed in Indian countr y – they affect Federal actions throughout a given nonattain ment area. Please note that the General Conformity rule exclud es from the applicability determination that portion of a Feder al action that includes major new or modified stationary sources t hat require a permit under the NSR program (CAA section 173) or t he prevention of significant deterioration program (CAA Title I, Part C). See 40 CFR 93.153(d)(1). Lastly, because we have decided to defer reclassifi cation of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, the General Conformity threshold will remain at 25 tons per year of VOC or NO x for these Reservations pending our final decisions on the Tri bes’ boundary change requests. 9

Comment #6: An anonymous commenter states that San Joaquin Valley has not applied the 1-hour ozone anti-backsl iding measures and has not reviewed permits according to the NSR r equirements of an “extreme” 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. The c ommenter also states that the lower permitting thresholds and hig her offset ratio for San Joaquin Valley have been in effect si nce the May 2004 action that classified the area as “extreme” f or 1-hour

9 The General Conformity de minimis threshold for t he South Coast Air Basin, including all Indian country therein except the Mor ongo and Pechanga Reservations, will be lowered from 25 tons per year to 10 tons per year by29

ozone. Accordingly, the commenter insists that EPA must require San Joaquin Valley to evaluate all of its permittin g actions from that point forward against the requirements of an “ extreme” 1- hour ozone classification. Response #6: This comment is outside the scope of our proposed action. This comment does not challenge ou r proposed action to grant the State of California’s request u nder 40 CFR 51.903(b) and CAA section 181(b)(3) to reclassify t he San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area to “extreme” for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard nor does it challenge our decision not to establish any new SIP revision deadlines for the San Joaquin Vall ey area. Instead, it pertains to the implementation and enfo rcement of 1- hour ozone “extreme” NSR permitting requirements in the San Joaquin Valley at the corresponding major source th reshold and offset ratio for that classification. As noted in f ootnote #18 on page 43662 of the preamble to our proposed rule: “T he deadlines proposed herein relate solely to specific additiona l requirements triggered by the reclassification for the 8-hour oz one NAAQS and should not be interpreted as relieving an area of a ny existing obligation that the area has based on its 1-hour oz one classification, or of existing obligations not rela ted to attainment that are based on its current 8-hour ozo ne classification.”

virtue of this final rule.30

Moreover, the NSR requirements to which EPA refers in the proposed rule relate to the State of California’s o bligation to submit SIP revisions meeting the statutory requirem ents, not to the requirements on new stationary sources and modi fications

themselves. 10 In March 2009, the State of California submitted a SIP revision including NSR rules that apply in the San Joaquin Valley that are intended to address the “extreme” 8 -hour ozone nonattainment area NSR requirements. On April 12, 2 010, EPA’s Region 9 Regional Administrator signed a final rule to take a limited approval and limited disapproval action on this SIP revision. The pre-publication version of this final rule has been placed in the docket.

V. Final Action We believe that the plain language of CAA section 1 81(b)(3) mandates that we approve voluntary reclassification requests, 11 and thus, EPA is taking final action to grant the S tate’s request for the following voluntary reclassifications: the San Joaquin Valley area from "serious" to "extreme"; the South Coast Air

10 See, e.g., page 43658 of the preamble to the prop osed rule (74 FR 43654)(“In regards to ... the requirements for SIPs regarding ... (“new source review”), the reclassifications would not lower the “major source” applicability thresholds required in a revised SIP ...”). 11 The reclassification requests submitted by the St ate of California do not explicitly address Indian country located within th e various ozone nonattainment areas. We have assumed that the State of California’s request relates only to the portions of the nonattainment a reas that lie outside of Indian country because the State is not approved to implement the CAA in Indian country located within the state.31

Basin area from "severe-17" to "extreme"; and the C oachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from "serious" to "severe-15." Upon the effective date of this final action granti ng the reclassifications, these four areas are required to attain the 8- hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, b ut not later than the applicable maximum attainment period set f orth in 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1: June 15, 2024 for San Joaquin V alley and the South Coast Air Basin; and June 15, 2019 for Coache lla Valley and

Sacramento Metro. 12

In connection with reclassification of the four sub ject areas, and for the reasons discussed above and in t he proposed rule, we are establishing the deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification for sub mittal of revisions to the Sacramento Metro portion (Sacramen to Metropolitan AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Feather River AQMD only) of the California SIP to meet the NSR require ments of a “severe-15” area. As discussed above, EPA is deferr ing the setting of a submittal deadline for revision to the California SIP for the four subject areas to meet the requirem ents of CAA section 185. With the exceptions of submittal requi rements for

12 Because we are reclassifying Indian country in th ese areas consistent with the classifications requested by the State (with th e exception of the two reservations for which we are deferring reclassific ation), the new attainment dates apply area-wide to both State lands and India n country located therein. Unlike the State of California, however, the Indian tribes located within the four subject areas are not subject to specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines under the new ozone classi fications. See 40 CFR § 49.4.32

SIP revisions for the NSR requirements for the Sacr amento Metro area, and the section 185 fee requirements for the four subject areas, we have determined that the State has submit ted SIP revisions for all other additional requirements for the four subject areas. As such, there is no need to establi sh a deadline for any other SIP revision requirement. 13 In addition, consistent with our discretionary auth ority under CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4), and for th e reasons discussed above and in the proposed rule, we are si milarly finalizing our reclassification of all Indian count ry within the four areas, except Indian country pertaining to the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes, consistent with the reclassificati on requests for the surrounding non-Indian country lands. As di scussed above, EPA is deferring the reclassification of the Morong o and Pechanga Reservations pending our final decisions on their b oundary change requests. In Table 1 below, we list tribes that hav e Indian country located within the four subject areas of th is final action. Aside from the Morongo and Pechanga Reserva tions, we also note that the reclassifications apply to all Indian country within any of the four subject areas that exists at present or at any future time while the given area continues to b e designated

13 The deadline established through this final actio n relates solely to specific additional requirements triggered by the r eclassification for the 8- hour ozone NAAQS and should not be interpreted as r elieving any of the four areas of any existing obligation that an area has b ased on its 1-hour ozone classification, or of existing obligations unrelate d to attainment that are based on an area’s original 8-hour ozone classifica tion.33

as nonattainment. Reclassification lowers the de mi nimis thresholds for the affected tribes, as per EPA’s Ge neral Conformity rule (40 CFR part 53, subpart B), but do es not lower the applicable “major source” thresholds because th e 25 tons per year “major source” thresholds for VOC and NO x in the Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas, and the 10 tons per year thresholds for VOC and NO x in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast areas, already apply under the areas’ 1-hour ozone classifications.

TABLE 1: TRIBES WITH INDIAN COUNTRY LOCATED WITHIN THE FOUR AREAS SUBJECT TO RECLASSIFICATION

San Joaquin Valley South Coast Air Basin Coachella

Valley Sacramento Metro Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the Big Sandy Rancheria) Cahuilla Band of

Indians (including the Cahuilla Reservation) Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (including the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation) Rumsey Indian

Rancheria of Wintun Indians (including the Rumsey Indian Rancheria)

Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians (including the Cold Springs Rancheria) Ramona Band of

Cahuilla Mission Indians (including the Ramona Band) Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians (including the Augustine Reservation) Shingle

Springs Band of Miwok Indians [including the Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract)] North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians San Manuel Band

of Mission Indians Cabazon Band of Mission Indians United Auburn

Indian Com munity34

(including the North Fork Rancheria) (including the

San Manuel Reservation) (including the Cabazon Reservation) (including the

Auburn Rancheria) Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (including the Picayune Rancheria) Santa Rosa Band

of Cahuilla Indians (including the South Coast Air Basin portion of the Santa Rosa Reservation) Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians (including the Coachella Valley portion of the Santa Rosa Reservation) Santa Rosa Indian Community (including the Santa Rosa Rancheria) Soboba Band of

Luiseño Indians (including the Soboba Reservation) Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (including theTorresMartinez Reservation) Table Mountain Rancheria (including the Table Mountain Rancheria) Reclassification

Deferred for: Morongo Band of Mission Indians (including the Morongo Reservation) Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (including the Twenty-Nine PalmsReservationRiverside County Section) Tule River Indian Tribe (including the Tule River Reservation) Reclassification

Deferred for: Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (including the Pechanga Reservation)

To codify our final action reclassifying the four s ubject areas, we are revising the table for 8-hour ozone i n 40 CFR 81.305 accordingly.35

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4 , 1993), this final action is not a “significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to Executive Order 12866. With respect to lands under state jurisdiction, voluntary reclas sifications under CAA section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based so lely upon requests by the State, and EPA is required under th e CAA to grant them. These actions do not, in and of themselves, i mpose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addi tion, because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically triggered by reclassification, re classification does not impose a materially adverse impact under E xecutive Order 12866. With respect to Indian country, reclassifica tions do not establish deadlines for air quality plans or plan r evisions. For these reasons, this final action is also not subjec t to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That S ignificantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, I certify that this final rule will no t have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U. S.C. 601 et

seq .), and that this final rule does not contain any u nfunded36

mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small g overnments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 19 95 (Public Law 104-4), because EPA is required to grant requests b y states for voluntary reclassifications and such reclassificati ons in and of themselves do not impose any federal intergovernmen tal mandate, and because tribes are not subject to implementatio n plan submittal deadlines that apply to States as a resul t of reclassifications. Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 200 0) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to e nsure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implicati ons” is defined in section 1(a) of the Executive Order to i nclude regulations that have “substantial direct effects o n one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Fede ral Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of po wer and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” Several Indian tribes have Indian country located w ithin the boundaries of the four subject ozone nonattainment areas. EPA implements federal Clean Air Act programs, includin g reclassifications, in these areas of Indian country consistent with our discretionary authority under sections 301 (a) and37

301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act. EPA has concluded t hat this final rule might have tribal implications for the purpose s of E.O. 13175, but would not impose substantial direct cost s upon the tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. This final rule does not affect implementation of new source review for new or modified stationary sources proposed to be located in the In dian country areas proposed for reclassification, but might affe ct projects proposed in these areas that require Federal permit s, approvals, or funding. Such projects are subject to the requir ements of EPA’s General Conformity rule, and Federal permits, approvals, or funding for the projects may be more difficult to o btain because of the lower de minimis thresholds triggered by reclassification. 14 Given the potential implications, EPA contacted tri bal officials early in the process of developing this f inal rule to provide an opportunity to have meaningful and timel y input into its development. On July 31, 2008, we sent letters to leaders of the 22 tribes with Indian country areas in the four subject nonattainment areas seeking their input on how we c ould best communicate with the tribes on the rulemaking effor t. 15 We

14 As noted in section IV (“Public Comments and EPA Responses”), EPA is deferring the reclassification of the Morongo and P echanga Reservations pending our final decisions on their boundary chang e requests. Thus, for the time being, the current General Conformity de minim is thresholds (25 tons per year for VOC or NO x ) continue to apply for projects proposed in the Mo rongo and Pechanga Reservations that require Federal perm its, approvals, or funding. 15 In our proposed rule, we indicated that we sent l etters to the leaders of 21 tribes with Indian country areas in the four sub ject nonattainment areas.38

received responses from nine tribes, of whom four i ndicated faceto-face meetings as one of several preferred means of communication. Prior to our proposal we had met wit h two tribes that sought specific meetings on the reclassificati ons: Morongo Band of Mission Indians (“Morongo Tribe”) and Pecha nga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (“Pechanga Tribe”). Followi ng the end of the comment period on our proposal, we met again wi th the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes to discuss the Tribes’ broader requests for separate nonattainment areas. We also contacted the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, and the Sant a Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians to clarify how the reclassificatio n would affect each Tribe’s Indian country in Coachella Valley. EP A has carefully considered the views expressed by the Tri bes, including (as described in detail above) the views expressed in written comments on EPA’s proposed reclassification rule. This final action also does not have Federalism imp lications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national go vernment and the States, nor on the distribution of power and re sponsibilities among the various levels of government, as specifie d in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This fi nal action

On July 31, 2008 we had also sent a letter to the l eader of the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Luiseño Mission Indians in relation t o the Tribe’s Indian country located within the Western Mojave Desert no nattainment area, for which the State of California has also submitted a reclas sification request but for which we have deferred action. This Tribe is affect ed by this final action in relation to its Indian country in the Coachella Val ley nonattainment area.39

does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This final rule also is not subject to Executive Or der 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health R isks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), becaus e EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those reg ulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such t hat the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. h as the potential to influence the regulation. Reclassification actions do not involve technical s tandards and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) also do not apply. In addition, this final ru le does not impose an information collection burden under the p rovisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq .). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 199 4) establishes federal executive policy on environment al justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make en vironmental justice part of their mission by identifying and ad dressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse hu man health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. This reclassification action relates to ozo ne, a40

pollutant that is regional in nature, and is not th e type of action that could result in the types of local impa cts addressed in Executive Order 12898. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforceme nt Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submi t a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the Unit ed States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is p ublished in

the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petit ions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FE DERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publicatio n of this document in the Federal Register ]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes o f judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a p etition for41

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpon e the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action m ay not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requ irements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness

areas.

___/April 15, 2010/___ ___/signed by Jared Blumenfeld/___ Dated: Jared Blumenfeld Regional Administrator Region IX42

Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 81--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as

follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart C – [AMENDED]

2. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for “Cali fornia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” by revising the entries for “Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA,” “Riverside Co. (Coachella Val ley), CA,” “Sacramento Metro, CA,” and “San Joaquin Valley, CA ,” and by adding footnotes “c” and “2” to read as follows: §81.305 California.

* * * * * * *

California – Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area Designation a Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * * Los Angeles

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

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. That portion of Los Angeles County which lies south and west of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County boundary and running west along the Township line common to43 Township 3 North and Township 2 North, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then north along the range line common to Range 8 West and Range 9 West; then west along the Township line common to Township 4 North and Township 3 North; then north along the range line common to Range 12 West and Range 13 West to the southeast corner of Section 12, Township 5 North and Range 13 West; then west along the south boundaries of Sections 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7, Township 5 North and Range 13 West to the boundary of the Angeles National Forest which is collinear with the range line common to Range 13 West and Range 14 West; then north and west along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the Township line common to Township 7 North and Township 6 North (point is at the northwest corner of Section 4 in Township 6 North and Range 14 West); then west along the Township line common to Township 7 North and Township 6 North; then north along the range line common to Range 15 West and Range 16 West to the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 7 North and Range 16 West; then along the south boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 7 North and Range 16 West; then north along the range line common to Range 16 West and Range 17 West to the north boundary of the Angeles National Forest (collinear with the Township line common to Township 8 North and44 Township 7 North); then west and north along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the south boundary of the Rancho La Liebre Land Grant; then west and north along this land grant boundary to the Los Angeles-Kern County boundary. Orange County

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Su bpart 2 / Extreme. Riverside County (part)

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. That portion of Riverside County, except that portion of the area defined below that lies within the Morongo Reservation or the Pechanga Reservation c , which lies to the west of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Riverside-San Diego County boundary and running north along the range line common to Range 4 East and Range 3 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then east along the Township line common to Township 8 South and Township 7 South; then north along the range line common to Range 5 East and Range 4 East; then west along the Township line common to Township 6 South and Township 7 South to the southwest corner of Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 4 East; then north along the west boundaries of Sections 34, 27, 22, 15, 10, and 3, Township 6 South, Range 4 East; then west along the Township line common to Township 5 South and Township 6 South; then north along the range line common to Range 4 East and Range 3 East; then west along the south boundaries45

of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 5 South, Range 3 East; then north along the range line common to Range 2 East and Range 3 East; to the Riverside-San Bernardino County line. Morong o Reservation c

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-17. Pechanga Reservation c

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-17. San Bernardino County (part)

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. That portion of San Bernardino County which lies south and west of a line described as follows: Beginning at the San Bernardino-Riverside County boundary and running north along the range line common to Range 3 East and Range 2 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then west along the Township line common to Township 3 North and Township 2 North to the San Bernardino-Los Angeles County boundary.

* * * * * * * Riverside Co. (Coachella Valley), CA: .................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15. Riverside County (part) .................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15. That portion of Riverside County which lies to the east of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Riverside-San Diego County boundary and running north along the range line common to Range 4 East and Range 3 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then east along the Township line common to Township 8 South and Township 7 South; then north along the range line common to Range 5 East and Range 4 East; then west46

alon g the Township line common to Township 6 South and Township 7 South to the southwest corner of Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 4 East; then north along the west boundaries of Sections 34, 27, 22, 15, 10, and 3, Township 6 South, Range 4 East; then west along the Township line common to Township 5 South and Township 6 South; then north along the range line common to Range 4 East and Range 3 East; then west along the south boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 5 South, Range 3 East; then north along the range line common to Range 2 East and Range 3 East; to the Riverside-San Bernardino County line. And that portion of Riverside County which lies to the west of a line described as follows: That segment of the southwestern boundary line of Hydrologic Unit Number 18100100 within Riverside County, further described as follows: Beginning at the Riverside-Imperial County boundary and running north along the range line common to Range 17 East and Range 16 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; then northwest along the ridge line of the Chuckwalla Mountains, through Township 8 South, Range 16 East and Township 7 South, Range 16 East, until the Black Butte Mountain, elevation 4504'; then west and northwest along the ridge line to the southwest corner of Township 5 South, Range 14 East; then north along the range line common to Range 14 East and Range 13 East;47

then west and northwest along the ridge line to Monument Mountain, elevation 4834'; then southwest and then northwest along the ridge line of the Little San Bernardino Mountains to Quail Mountain, elev. 5814'; then northwest along the ridge line to the Riverside-San Bernardino County line.

* * * * * * * Sacramento Metro, CA:

.................. Nona ttainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15. El Dorado County (part)

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15. All portions of the county, except that portion of El Dorado County within the drainage area naturally tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake. Placer County (part)

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15. All portions of the county except that portion of Placer County within the drainage area naturally tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, plus that area in the vicinity of the head of the Truckee River described as follows: Commencing at the point common to the aforementioned drainage area crestline and the line common to Townships 15 North and 16 North, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and following that line in a westerly direction to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 15 North, Range 16 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, thence south along the west line of Sections 3 and 10, Township 15 North, Range 16 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, to the intersection with the said48 drainage area crestline, thence following the said drainage area boundary in a southeasterly, then northeasterly direction to and along the Lake Tahoe Dam, thence following the said drainage area crestline in a northeasterly, then northwesterly direction to the point of beginning. Sacramento County

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

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15. That portion of Solano County which lies north and east of a line described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly boundary of Solano County and the 1/4 section line running east and west through the center of Section 34; Township 6 North, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, thence east along said 1/4 section line to the east boundary of Section 36, Township 6 North, Range 2 West, thence south 1/2 mile and east 2.0 miles, more or less, along the west and south boundary of Los Putos Rancho to the northwest corner of Section 4, Township 5 North, Range 1 West, thence east along a line common to Township 5 North and Township 6 North to the northeast corner of Section 3, Township 5 North, Range 1 East, thence south along section lines to the southeast corner of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, thence east along section lines to the south 1/4 corner of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 2 East, thence east to the49

boundary between Solano and Sacramento Counties. Sutter County (part)

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15. Portion south of a line connecting the northern border of Yolo County to the SW tip of Yuba County and continuing along the southern Yuba County border to Placer County. Yolo County

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Severe-15.

* * * * * * * San Joaquin Valley, CA:

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. Fresno County .................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. Kern County (part)

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. T hat portion of Kern County which lies west and north of a line described as follows: Beginning at the Kern-Los Angeles County boundary and running north and east along the northwest boundary of the Rancho La Libre Land Grant to the point of intersection with the range line common to R. 16 W. and R. 17 W., San Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along the range line to the point of intersection with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then southeast, northeast, and northwest along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the northwest corner of S. 3, T. 11 N., R. 17 W.; then west 1.2 miles; then north to the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then northwest along the Rancho El Tejon line to the southeast corner of S. 34, T. 32 S., R. 30 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; then north to the northwest corner of S. 35, T. 31 S., R. 30 E.;50

then northeast along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the southwest corner of S. 18, T. 31 S., R. 31 E.; then east to the southeast corner of S. 13, T. 31 S., R. 31 E.; then north along the range line common to R. 31 E. and R. 32 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, to the northwest corner of S. 6, T. 29 S., R. 32 E.; then east to the southwest corner of S. 31, T. 28 S., R. 32 E.; then north along the range line common to R. 31 E. and R. 32 E. to the northwest corner of S. 6, T. 28 S., R. 32 E., then west to the southeast corner of S. 36, T. 27 S., R. 31 E., then north along the range line common to R. 31 E. and R. 32 E. to the Kern-Tulare County boundary. Kings County

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. Madera County

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. Merced County

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. San Joaquin County .................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. Stanislaus County

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. Tulare County

.................. Nonattainment ( 2 ) Subpart 2 / Extreme. * * * * * * *

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.

b The boundaries for these designated areas are bas ed on coordinates of latitude and longitude derived from EPA Region 9's GIS database and are illustrated in a map entitled “Eastern San Diego County Attainment Areas for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,” dated March 9, 2004, including an attached set of coordin ates. The map and attached set of coordinates are available at EP A's Region 9 Air Division office. The designated areas roughly a pproximate the boundaries of the reservations for these tribes, bu t their inclusion in this table is intended for CAA plannin g purposes only and is not intended to be a federal determinat ion of the51

exact boundaries of the reservations. Also, the spe cific listing of these tribes in this table does not confer, deny , or withdraw Federal recognition of any of the tribes so listed nor any of the tribes not listed.

c The use of reservation boundaries for this design ation is for purposes of CAA planning only and is not intended t o be a federal determination of the exact boundaries of the reserv ations. Nor does the specific listing of the Tribes in this tab le confer, deny, or withdraw Federal recognition of any of the Tribes listed or not listed.

1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise note d.

2 This date is [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: Insert dat e 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Registe r]

. * * * * * * *