ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

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

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

California; San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Coachella 

Valley, and Sacramento Metro 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas; 

Reclassification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), EPA is granting 

requests by the State of California to reclassify the following 

four areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS): the San Joaquin 

Valley area from “serious” to “extreme,” the South Coast Air 

Basin area from “severe-17” to “extreme,” and the Coachella 

Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from “serious” to “severe-15.” 

In connection with the reclassifications, EPA is setting a 

deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of 

reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Sacramento 

Metro area portion of the California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to meet the additional new source review (NSR) requirements 

for “severe-15” 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is 

deferring the setting of a submittal deadline for certain fee 

rules under section 185 of the CAA. 
2

A number of Indian tribes have Indian country1 located 

within the boundaries of the affected areas. The State of 

California is not approved to administer any CAA programs in 

Indian country, and the relevant Indian tribes have not applied 

for eligibility to administer programs under the CAA for their 

areas. In these circumstances, EPA implements relevant 

reclassification provisions of the CAA in these Indian country 

areas and is reclassifying these areas, except Indian country 

pertaining to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (“Morongo 

Tribe”) and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians 

(“Pechanga Tribe”), in keeping with the classifications of 

nonattainment areas within which they are located. EPA is 

deferring the reclassification of Indian country pertaining to 

the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes pending EPA’s final decisions on 

their previously-submitted boundary change requests. In 

connection with this final action, EPA notified the affected 

tribal leaders and consulted with interested tribes. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on [FEDERAL REGISTER 

OFFICE: Insert date 30 days from the date of publication in the 

Federal Register].

 

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 
3

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

0467 for this action. The index to the docket is available 

electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 

While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be 

publicly available in either location (e.g., confidential 

business information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office 

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 

972-3227, mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms 

“we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

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

Rules 

III. Deferral of Reclassification for Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians 

 

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 grant the 

following reclassification requests by the State of California: 

the San Joaquin Valley area from “serious” to “extreme,” the 

South Coast Air Basin area from “severe-17” to “extreme,” and the 

Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from “serious” to 

“severe-15.” 

We proposed approval of these requests under section 

181(b)(3) of the CAA, which provides for “voluntary

reclassification” and states: “The Administrator shall grant the 

request of any State to reclassify a nonattainment area in that 

State in accordance with Table 1 of subsection (a) of this 

section to a higher classification. The Administrator shall 

publish a notice in the Federal Register of any such request and 

of action by the Administrator granting the request.” The 

provision for voluntary reclassification has been brought forward 

as part of the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 

8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.903(b) (“A State may request 

a higher classification for any reason in accordance with section 

181(b)(3) of the CAA”) and 40 CFR 51.903(a) Table 1.
5

For each of the four areas, we compared a list of the 

specific additional requirements that would be triggered for each 

area as a consequence of our approval of the reclassification 

requests with the revisions to the SIP that the State of 

California had already submitted. For any requirement in any area 

lacking a submittal from the State, we proposed a deadline for 

submission. 

Based on this evaluation, we proposed to establish a 

deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of 

reclassification for submittal of revisions to the Coachella 

Valley portion of the SIP to meet the CAA section 185 fee 

requirements (“section 185 fee rules”). EPA also proposed the 

same deadline for submittal of revisions to the Sacramento Metro 

area portion of the SIP to meet the following additional SIP 

requirements for “severe-15” areas: NSR rules consistent with 

this classification (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (AQMD), Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District (APCD), and Feather River AQMD only) and section 185 fee 

rules (El Dorado County AQMD, Placer County APCD, Feather River 

AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD only). As discussed in section II of 

this final rule, EPA has decided to defer setting a SIP submittal 

deadline for section 185 fee rules. 

In our proposed rule, we considered the relevance of the 

State’s reclassification requests to reclassification of Indian 
6

country located within the four nonattainment areas. We proposed 

to directly administer CAA section 181(b)(3) and reclassify 

Indian country geographically located in the nonattainment areas 

that are the subject of the State’s reclassification requests in 

order to avoid inappropriate and infeasible results, consistent 

with EPA’s discretionary authority in CAA sections 301(a) and 

301(d)(4) to directly administer CAA programs and to protect air 

quality in Indian country through federal implementation. 

In so doing, we explained why uniformity of classification 

throughout a nonattainment area is a guiding principle and 

premise when an area is being reclassified. We noted that groundlevel ozone continues to be a pervasive pollution problem in 

areas throughout the United States and that ozone and precursor 

pollutants that cause ozone can be transported throughout a 

nonattainment area. Therefore, boundaries for nonattainment areas 

are drawn to encompass both the areas that violate the NAAQS as 

well as nearby contributing areas. For certain areas designated 

as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, such as those to 

which this action applies, initial classifications occur by 

operation of law and exactly match the boundaries of the 

respective nonattainment areas. We believe that this approach 

best ensures public health protection from the adverse effects of 

ozone pollution and that, therefore, it is generally 

counterproductive from an air quality and planning perspective to 
7

have a disparate classification for a land area located within 

the boundaries of a nonattainment area, such as the Indian 

country contained in the ozone nonattainment areas at issue here. 

Moreover, we noted that violations of the 8-hour ozone standard, 

which are measured and modeled throughout each nonattainment 

area, as well as shared meteorological conditions, would dictate 

the same result. Furthermore, emissions changes in lowerclassified ozone areas could hinder planning efforts to attain 

the NAAQS within the overall area through the application of less 

stringent requirements relative to those that apply in the areas 

with higher ozone classifications. 

With regard to the Indian country at issue in our proposed 

action, EPA also took into account other factors. For example, we 

proposed that the likelihood of attainment by the applicable 

deadline under the current classification is an appropriate 

consideration for reclassifying Indian country within the larger 

nonattainment areas. If EPA believes it is likely that a given 

ozone nonattainment area will not attain the ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date, then it may be an additional reason 

why it is appropriate to maintain a uniform classification within 

the nonattainment area and thus to reclassify the Indian country 

consistent with the State’s request to reclassify the non-Indian 

country portion of the area. On the other hand, if EPA believes 

that meeting the original attainment date for the whole 
8

nonattainment area appears still to be a reasonable possibility, 

then it conceivably might be appropriate for EPA to decline to 

reclassify Indian country, notwithstanding the State’s request to 

reclassify the State portion of the area, and notwithstanding the 

generally weighty considerations that support the retention of a 

single uniformly-classified nonattainment area. Such 

considerations include the pervasive nature of the ozone problem, 

and the transport of ozone and ozone precursors over a wide 

geographic area. Depending on the circumstances, other factors 

might also provide justifications for refraining from 

reclassifying Indian country in conjunction with granting a 

State’s request for voluntary reclassification of State areas in 

the same nonattainment area. 

With respect to the four subject areas, we evaluated the 

likelihood of attainment by the area’s existing attainment 

deadline, based on information that is currently available. That 

evaluation was aided by the fact that the State of California has 

already submitted attainment demonstrations for these four areas 

that are intended to support later attainment dates under their 

requested new, higher classifications. We also noted that EPA was 

not determining which new attainment date is as expeditious as 

practicable for each area, nor whether these attainment 

demonstrations are approvable. 
9

In light of the considerations we outlined in our proposal 

and reiterated above that support retention of uniformlyclassified ozone nonattainment areas, and the evidence (in the 

form of plan submittals for the four areas) that provides support 

for an attainment date beyond the date applicable under the 

current classifications, we proposed to reclassify the Indian 

country within each area2 as follows: areas within San Joaquin 

Valley and South Coast Air Basin to “extreme”, and areas within 

Coachella Valley and Sacramento Metro to “severe-15.” As 

discussed in section III of this final rule, EPA has decided to 

defer reclassification of Indian country pertaining to the 

Morongo Tribe and the Pechanga Tribe pending EPA’s final 

decisions on their boundary change requests. 

Please see our August 27, 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 43654) 

for additional background and a more detailed explanation of our 

proposed action. 

 

2 In section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule, we identified the 

tribes with Indian country in each of the four subject nonattainment areas. In 

so doing, we inadvertently failed to identify two tribes that have Indian 

country in Coachella Valley: the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians and the 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. EPA had invited both tribes to 

consult with EPA regarding prospective EPA action to reclassify Indian country 

within five nonattainment areas in California, including the four areas 

subject to today’s action as well as Western Mojave Desert. (As noted in 

footnote #8 of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA plans to take action 

related to California’s reclassification request for Western Mojave Desert in 

a separate rulemaking.) Since we inadvertently failed to identify these two 

Tribes as having Indian country in Coachella Valley in section III.B of the 

proposed rule, we contacted them to clarify that our proposal to reclassify 

Indian country areas within Coachella Valley to “severe-15” relates to all 

Indian country located therein nothwithstanding the incomplete list of such 

areas in section III.B of the proposal. Neither Tribe has responded to EPA’s 

invitation to consult nor expressed either their assent or objection to 

reclassification of their lands in Coachella Valley in response to our 
10

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

Rules 

In our August 27, 2009 proposed rule, we proposed to set a 

deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of 

the final reclassifications for the State of California to submit 

revisions to the SIP to address CAA section 185 fee requirements 

for certain 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas: Coachella Valley 

and Sacramento Metro (El Dorado County AQMD, Placer County APCD, 

Feather River AQMD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD only). 

 Upon further consideration, we have decided to defer the 

setting of a deadline for submittal of a SIP revision addressing 

the section 185 fee requirements for any area affected by this 

action. Under CAA section 185, the obligation to collect fees 

could not be triggered until after an area fails to attain the 

NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. Assuming that the 

maximum period for attainment represents the date for which 

attainment is as “expeditious as practicable” in the areas 

subject to the new 8-hour classifications under today’s 

rulemaking, the obligation to collect fees under any fee rule 

submitted to comply with section 185 could not possibly be due 

until after June 15, 2019 (for Sacramento Metro and Coachella 

Valley) or after June 15, 2024 (for San Joaquin Valley and the 

 

contacts on this matter. 
11

South Coast). EPA recently issued guidance regarding 1-hour ozone 

anti-backsliding fee programs3 but has not yet completed its 

consideration of the relationship between 1-hour and 8-hour fee 

programs for these areas. There is at present no immediate need 

to set a deadline for submission of the 8-hour fees SIP program 

as we believe that there will be sufficient time for EPA to 

establish a SIP revision deadline for this requirement and for 

the State of California to develop and submit the necessary fee 

rules.4 Indeed, in a previous EPA action granting a request for 

voluntary reclassification of the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 

(Texas) 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to “severe-15”, EPA also 

deferred setting a deadline for the section 185 fee SIP 

submission. See 73 FR 56983 (October 1, 2008), especially 

footnote 1. 

III. Deferral of Reclassification for Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians 

As described in section I (“Proposed Action”) above, in our 

August 27, 2009 proposed rule, we proposed to directly administer 

CAA section 181(b)(3) and reclassify Indian country within the 

 

3 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, “Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act 

Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS,” January 5, 2010. 

4 Notwithstanding our decision to defer setting a SIP revision deadline for 

section 185 fee rules, we note that, upon reclassification, the requirement to 

submit SIP revisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 185 will apply to 

each of the four subject areas of this action by virtue of being classified as 

“severe-15” or “extreme” for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
12

four subject areas in keeping with the State’s reclassification 

requests for the surrounding non-Indian country lands and 

consistent with EPA’s discretionary authority in CAA section 

301(a) and 301(d)(4) to directly administer CAA programs and 

protect air quality in Indian country through federal 

implementation. For the South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area, 

we named seven tribes whose Indian country would be reclassified 

to “extreme” for 8-hour ozone. 

Two of these tribes, the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes, 

submitted comments on our proposed action in which they objected 

to being reclassified to “extreme.” (See section IV (“Public 

Comments and EPA Responses”) below.) In their comment letters, 

the Tribes reiterated their requests from May 29, 2009 and June 

23, 2009, respectively, for boundary changes to establish 

separate nonattainment areas or, in the alternative, to extend 

the boundaries of adjacent, lower-classified nonattainment areas 

to include the Tribes’ Indian country. We refer to these requests 

herein as “boundary change” requests. The Tribes’ comment letters 

also provided substantive analyses to support their objections to 

reclassification that largely mirror their boundary change 

requests. In both cases, the Tribes specifically request that no 

change be made to the classification of their respective Indian 

country located within the South Coast Air Basin pending EPA’s 

final decisions regarding the Tribes’ boundary change requests. 
13

Upon consideration of these comments, we have decided to 

defer the reclassification of the Indian country pertaining to 

the Morongo and Pechanga Tribes within the South Coast Air Basin 

(“the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations”) to “extreme” for the 8-

hour ozone standard, pending our final decisions on the Tribes’ 

boundary change requests to avoid any inconsistency that might 

result from reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga 

Reservations and decisions addressing the Tribes’ boundary change 

requests. We believe that this deferral will avoid confounding 

our further consideration of the Tribes’ boundary change 

requests. 

 If we grant a boundary change for either Tribe, we will 

specify the consequence of such action in a separate rulemaking 

on the designation and classification of that Tribe’s 

Reservation. If we deny a boundary change request for either 

Tribe, we will take final action on our August 27, 2009 proposal 

to reclassify that Tribe’s Reservation to “extreme”, consistent 

with the rest of the nonattainment area, after due consideration 

of the Tribe’s submitted comments. Until those separate actions 

are finalized, the Indian country of the Morongo and Pechanga 

Tribes in the South Coast Air Basin area will retain a 

classification of “severe-17” for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

This deferral of our decisions on reclassification is 

limited in scope to the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, and in 
14

time only until EPA finalizes our decisions on these Tribes’ 

boundary change requests. We are finalizing the reclassification 

of all other Indian country in the four subject areas to higher 

classifications in keeping with the State’s reclassification 

requests, including the five other Tribes we listed in our 

proposed rule as having Indian country within the South Coast Air 

Basin. (See section V (“Final Action”) below.) 

IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

 The publication of EPA’s proposed rule on August 27, 2009 

(74 FR 43654) started a public comment period that ended on 

September 28, 2009. During this period, we received a comment 

letter from the Morongo Tribe, and an anonymous comment letter. 

We also accepted a comment letter received from the Pechanga 

Tribe on October 6, 2009, after the comment period had closed. In 

the paragraphs that follow, we summarize the comments from the 

Morongo and Pechanga Tribes and the anonymous commenter, and 

provide our responses. 

Comment #1: The Morongo Tribe, in its comments, highlights 

its May 29, 2009 request to EPA (and accompanying rationale and 

documentation) for the establishment of a separate nonattainment 

area for the Morongo Reservation or, in the alternative, for a 

boundary change to extend the western boundary of the Coachella 

Valley nonattainment area to include the Morongo Reservation. 
15

With respect to the proposed reclassification of Indian country 

in the South Coast Air Basin, which includes the Morongo 

Reservation, to “extreme” for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Morongo 

Tribe objects to our proposal to reclassify the Morongo 

Reservation in the same manner as the South Coast Air Basin. The 

Tribe argues that the Morongo Reservation should be treated as 

its own nonattainment area or, in the alternative, should be 

redesignated as part of the Coachella Valley nonattainment area, 

and thus retain its existing classification. 

The Pechanga Tribe similarly objects to the reclassification 

of the Pechanga Reservation to “extreme,” consistent with the 

reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area. 

Like the Morongo Tribe, the Pechanga Tribe points to its June 23, 

2009 request to EPA (and accompanying rationale and

documentation) for the establishment of a separate nonattainment 

area for the Pechanga Reservation or, in the alternative, for a 

boundary change to extend the northern boundary of the San Diego 

Air Basin nonattainment area to include the entirety of the 

Pechanga Reservation. 

The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes believe that the factors 

used for initial area designations and for subsequent 

reclassifications of those areas should be the same. 

Specifically, the Tribes point to EPA’s December 2008 guidance 
16

for area designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone NAAQS5 as the 

appropriate guidance to apply in evaluating whether to include 

the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations in the reclassification of 

the South Coast Air Basin to “extreme.” The Morongo Tribe asserts 

that EPA’s failure to use the December 2008 guidance in 

evaluating whether to include the Morongo Reservation in the 

reclassification action appears to be an arbitrary and capricious 

exercise of EPA’s authority. The Pechanga Tribe asserts that 

EPA’s failure to use that guidance in evaluating whether to 

include the Pechanga Reservation in the reclassification action 

ignores tribal interests. The Tribes contend that the December 

2008 guidance provides the factors6 that EPA should have used for 

the proposed action with respect to the Morongo and Pechanga 

Reservations. They also include detailed evaluations of the 

application of the factors from the December 2008 guidance to 

their areas, as suggested by the 2008 guidance for determining 

nonattainment area boundaries in designations for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS.7

 

5 See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) for the 2008 Revised Ozone NAAQS. 

6 See Attachment 2 of the memorandum from Robert J. Myers, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, “Area Designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” December 4, 2008. Attachment 2 is 

entitled, “Factors EPA Plans to Consider in Determining Nonattainment Area 

Boundaries in Designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.” 

7 EPA is in the process of reconsidering the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As part 

of this process, EPA has proposed a revised ozone NAAQS (75 FR 2938, January 

19, 2010) and extended the deadline for promulgating designations for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (75 FR 2936, January 19, 2010). Depending on the outcome of this 

reconsideration, we may issue new guidance for determining ozone nonattainment 

area boundaries. 
17

Based on these evaluations, the Tribes conclude that 

consideration of the factors from the December 2008 guidance 

supports a decision not to reclassify the Morongo and Pechanga 

Reservations along with the South Coast Air Basin, but rather to 

redesignate the Reservations as separate nonattainment areas and 

to retain each Reservation’s current classification. 

Response #1: We disagree that the EPA guidance on initial 

area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides the factors 

we must use in evaluating whether to reclassify Indian country 

located within a nonattainment area for which a State has 

voluntarily requested reclassification. That guidance is intended 

to provide a consistent set of principles to apply in identifying 

the initial boundaries of nonattainment areas during the 

designations process. In contrast, once an area’s initial 

boundary is established, the retention of a single uniformlyclassified area becomes a guiding principle and premise in 

determining whether to reclassify Indian country located within 

the area in light of a State’s voluntary request for such a 

reclassification of non-Indian country lands. 

We do believe, however, that the December 2008 guidance is 

appropriate for use in supporting requests for boundary changes, 

such as the requests submitted by the Morongo Tribe on May 29, 

2009 and by the Pechanga Tribe on June 23, 2009.8 As described in 

 

8 EPA’s December 2008 guidance states that the factors, while generally 
18

section III of this final rule, we have decided to defer 

reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations pending 

our final decisions on their boundary change requests. 

We acknowledge the Tribe’s hypothesis that ozone 

nonattainment areas may be inherently defined by a single 

classification as well as a boundary and that retaining the 

existing classification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations 

would have the effect of creating new ozone nonattainment areas. 

Under this hypothesis, the application of EPA’s December 2008 

guidance would be appropriate in evaluating whether to reclassify 

Indian country consistent with the State’s requests for 

reclassification of non-Indian country. However, use of the 

guidance in this way is indistinguishable from reconsidering the 

boundaries of the nonattainment areas themselves, and 

reconsideration of the boundaries is an action that we explicitly 

stated we would not be undertaking in the reclassification 

action. See footnote 13 on page 43660 of the preamble to the 

proposed rule (74 FR 43654). We will, however, consider the 

Tribes’ nine-factor analyses in detail in our consideration of 

their boundary change requests. 

With respect to the factors that we considered in evaluating 

the appropriateness of reclassification of Indian country in our 

proposed rule, we provided a number of reasons supporting our use 

 

comprehensive, are not intended to be exhaustive. States and tribes may submit 
19

of the guiding principle and premise of uniformity of 

classification when an area is being reclassified (see pages 

43659 and 43660). In addition, we also identified certain 

circumstances when it might be appropriate to defer

reclassification of Indian country, notwithstanding the State’s 

request to reclassify the State portion of the area, such as 

where an area is likely to attain the standard by the attainment 

date under the existing classification. Thus, other

considerations could outweigh the guiding principle and premise 

of uniformity of classification. Upon consideration of the 

circumstances in each area, however, we concluded that no such 

considerations exist in this instance in any of the four subject 

areas. Therefore, with the exception of the Morongo and Pechanga 

Reservations for which are deferring final action, we are taking 

final action today to reclassify the Indian country in the four 

subject nonattainment areas to higher classifications consistent 

with the State’s reclassification requests for these areas. 

Comment #2: The Morongo Tribe asserts that the State of 

California has no jurisdiction to redesignate or reclassify the 

Morongo Reservation; that, consequently, California’s requests 

for reclassification have no legal import to the Reservation and 

cannot serve as the legal basis for the redesignation or 

reclassification of tribal lands. 

 

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 nonattainment areas was 

the impetus for our proposed action, but did not form the legal 

basis for our proposed action with respect to Indian country 

contained therein. Under CAA section 181(b)(3), EPA must grant 

the requests of the State to reclassify the non-tribal lands in 

the nonattainment areas. The question then becomes what EPA’s 

action should be with regard to the Indian country contained 

within these areas. In the preamble to our proposed rule, we 

described the legal authority we have relied upon to reclassify 

Indian country in the four subject areas as follows: 

“Typically, states are not approved to administer programs 

under the CAA in Indian country, and California has not been 

approved by EPA to administer any CAA programs in Indian 

country. CAA actions in Indian country would thus generally 

be taken either by EPA, or by an eligible Indian tribe 

itself under an EPA-approved program. In this instance, none 

of the affected tribes has applied under CAA section 301(d) 

for treatment-in-a-similar-manner-as-a-state for purposes of 

reclassification requests under section 181(b)(3), and none 

operates any relevant EPA-approved CAA regulatory program 

(e.g., a tribal implementation plan). In addition, the CAA 

does not require Indian tribes to develop and seek approval 
21

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. 
22

While tribes may choose to apply for eligibility to adopt 

implementation plans and seek reclassification of their 

areas in a manner similar to states, tribes need not do so.” 

See 74 FR 43654, at 43659 (August 27, 2009). 

In today’s action, we reaffirm the jurisdictional basis for 

EPA’s authority to decide whether or not to reclassify Indian 

country in ozone nonattainment areas in keeping with a State’s 

voluntary reclassification request, as per CAA section 181(b)(3). 

As noted in section III of this final rule, we have decided to 

defer reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations 

pending our final decisions on their boundary change requests to 

avoid confounding our further consideration of the Tribes’ 

boundary change requests. For all other Indian country located 

within the four subject nonattainment areas, under the 

authorities cited above, we are taking final action today to 

reclassify such Indian country consistent with the State’s 

reclassification requests. 

Comment #3: The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes assert that 

including the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations in the 

reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin to “extreme” will 

negatively impact the Tribe’s efforts to develop a tribal air 

permit program and to facilitate economic development on the 

Reservation. The Pechanga Tribe believes that including the 

Pechanga Reservation in the reclassification of the South Coast 
23

Air Basin to “extreme” for the 8-hour ozone standard would reduce 

the applicable “major source” threshold from 25 tons per year, to 

10 tons per year, of VOC or NOx. The Morongo Tribe states that 

the reclassification of the South Coast Air Basin to “extreme” 

would further cement the 10 tons per year threshold that began to 

apply as of the 2003 boundary change that brought the Morongo 

Reservation inside the South Coast Air Basin. This 10 tons per 

year threshold would, in the Tribes’ view, prevent the 

implementation of a meaningful minor source permitting program, 

increase the number of facilities potentially subject to “major 

source” new source review with a concomitant increase in the use 

and cost of tribal staff and facility resources, and increase the 

number of future facilities subject to title V Federal operating 

permit requirements. 

Response #3: This comment refers specifically to major 

source thresholds in the South Coast Air Basin, but calls into 

question the effect of reclassification on major source 

thresholds for NSR and Title V purposes in Indian country within 

each of the four subject nonattainment areas. We disagree with 

the assertion that reclassification of Indian country in the 

South Coast Air Basin would change the applicable major source 

threshold for NSR or Title V. Indeed, these thresholds will not 

change in any of the four subject areas. As explained in detail 

on page 43661 of the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
24

applicable major source thresholds for NSR and Title V would not 

change due to reclassification because the thresholds for the 

purposes of NSR and title V that had applied by virtue of the 

areas’ classifications under the 1-hour ozone standard continue 

to apply as anti-backsliding measures under the 8-hour ozone 

standard, and the new 8-hour ozone classification for each of the 

four subject areas, as reclassified, would be the same as each 

area’s corresponding 1-hour ozone classification. 

With respect to Indian country within the South Coast Air 

Basin, including the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, and 

within San Joaquin Valley, this means that the applicable major 

source threshold for NSR and Title V purposes is already 10 tons 

per year for VOC or NOx, with or without reclassification to 

“extreme” for 8-hour ozone, because the South Coast Air Basin and 

the San Joaquin Valley are already “extreme” for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. For Indian country within Coachella Valley and 

Sacramento Metro, this means that the applicable major source 

threshold for NSR and Title V purposes is already 25 tons per 

year for VOC or NOx. Thus, to the extent that a change in NSR 

major source threshold might affect economic development 

prospects of any Tribe in one of the four subject nonattainment 

areas, today’s action would have no such effect since it does not 

change the NSR major source threshold for any Tribe. 
25

As noted previously, we are deferring reclassification of 

the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, but for the reasons 

provided above, neither reclassification to “extreme” nor 

deferral of reclassification would affect the applicable major 

source threshold for NSR and Title V purposes within the Morongo 

and Pechanga Reservations. The applicable major source threshold 

is already 10 tons per year of VOC or NOx based on the 

classification of the South Coast Air Basin under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

Comment #4: The Pechanga Tribe states that, for existing and 

future facilities subject to nonattainment NSR, there is no 

system in place for facilities on tribal lands to obtain emission 

reduction credits. As such, these facilities, including those 

that are Native American-owned, would be at a disadvantage 

relative to facilities located outside of Indian country. 

Response #4: In our Indian country NSR proposal (71 FR 

48696, 8/21/2006) we noted that “[d]ue to the limited number of 

sources in Indian country, offsets are generally not available. 

We have proposed options for addressing the lack of availability 

of offsets in Indian country.” However, for reasons given above 

in our response to comment #3, reclassification of Indian country 

within the four subject nonattainment areas would not affect the 

offset requirement that emission reduction credits (ERCs) are 

commonly used to meet. That is, since applicable NSR 
26

requirements, including the major source threshold definition and 

offset requirements, in the four subject areas are based on the 

areas’ classifications for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the new 8-

hour ozone classification for each of the four subject areas, as 

reclassified, would be the same as the area’s corresponding 1-

hour ozone classification, reclassification would not change the 

offset requirement. Thus, the problem of the relative lack of 

available ERCs within the Indian country areas within the four 

subject areas would not be affected by reclassification. 

With respect to the Pechanga Tribe, we once again note that 

we are deferring reclassification of both the Morongo and 

Pechanga Reservations pending our decisions on their respective 

boundary change requests. However, such deferral has no bearing 

on the applicable NSR offset requirements within these two 

reservations, nor does it affect the relative lack of available 

ERCs. The current applicable offset ratio for VOC and NOx for the 

Morongo and Pechanga Reservations continues to be based on the 

classification of the South Coast Air Basin as “extreme” for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. (See CAA sections 182(e)(1) and 182(f) for 

offset requirements of “extreme” areas.) 

Comment #5: The Morongo and Pechanga Tribes assert that 

reducing the threshold for the applicability of General 

Conformity requirements from 25 to 10 tons per year VOC or NOx

would require many more projects to demonstrate that their 
27

emissions of criteria pollutants will not impede progress toward 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

Response #5: We agree that reclassification of the South 

Coast Air Basin, as proposed, would lower the applicability 

threshold under our General Conformity rule from 25 tons per year 

to 10 tons per year. We also note that reclassification of the 

other three nonattainment areas would also lower the applicable 

de minimis thresholds under EPA’s General Conformity rule in 

those areas. 

As explained in the preamble of our proposed rule (see pages 

43658 and 43661), under EPA’s General Conformity rule, Federal 

agencies bear the responsibility of determining conformity of 

actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that require 

Federal permits, approvals, or funding. Therefore, not all 

projects undertaken by the Tribes are subject to the General 

Conformity rule, but only those tribal projects that require 

Federal agency permits, approvals or funding. Moreover, the 

definition of “indirect emissions” in the General Conformity rule 

(see 40 CFR 93.152) further limits the reach of the rule by 

requiring that emissions caused by the action be reasonably 

foreseeable and of the type which the Federal agency can 

practicably control and can maintain control over due to a 

continuing program responsibility of the Federal agency. 
28

Furthermore, the potential impacts associated with any 

lowering of a General Conformity de minimis threshold are not 

unique to Federal actions proposed in Indian country – they 

affect Federal actions throughout a given nonattainment area. 

Please note that the General Conformity rule excludes from the 

applicability determination that portion of a Federal action that 

includes major new or modified stationary sources that require a 

permit under the NSR program (CAA section 173) or the prevention 

of significant deterioration program (CAA Title I, Part C). See 

40 CFR 93.153(d)(1). 

Lastly, because we have decided to defer reclassification of 

the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, the General Conformity 

threshold will remain at 25 tons per year of VOC or NOx for these 

Reservations pending our final decisions on the Tribes’ boundary 

change requests.9

Comment #6: An anonymous commenter states that San Joaquin 

Valley has not applied the 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding measures 

and has not reviewed permits according to the NSR requirements of 

an “extreme” 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. The commenter also 

states that the lower permitting thresholds and higher offset 

ratio for San Joaquin Valley have been in effect since the May 

2004 action that classified the area as “extreme” for 1-hour 

 

9 The General Conformity de minimis threshold for the South Coast Air Basin, 

including all Indian country therein except the Morongo and Pechanga 

Reservations, will be lowered from 25 tons per year to 10 tons per year by 
29

ozone. Accordingly, the commenter insists that EPA must require 

San Joaquin Valley to evaluate all of its permitting actions from 

that point forward against the requirements of an “extreme” 1-

hour ozone classification. 

Response #6: This comment is outside the scope of our 

proposed action. This comment does not challenge our proposed 

action to grant the State of California’s request under 40 CFR 

51.903(b) and CAA section 181(b)(3) to reclassify the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area to “extreme” for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard nor does it challenge our decision not to establish any 

new SIP revision deadlines for the San Joaquin Valley area. 

Instead, it pertains to the implementation and enforcement of 1-

hour ozone “extreme” NSR permitting requirements in the San 

Joaquin Valley at the corresponding major source threshold and 

offset ratio for that classification. As noted in footnote #18 on 

page 43662 of the preamble to our proposed rule: “The deadlines 

proposed herein relate solely to specific additional requirements 

triggered by the reclassification for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

should not be interpreted as relieving an area of any existing 

obligation that the area has based on its 1-hour ozone 

classification, or of existing obligations not related to 

attainment that are based on its current 8-hour ozone 

classification.” 

 

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 obligation to 

submit SIP revisions meeting the statutory requirements, not to 

the requirements on new stationary sources and modifications 

themselves.10 In March 2009, the State of California submitted a

SIP revision including NSR rules that apply in the San Joaquin 

Valley that are intended to address the “extreme” 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area NSR requirements. On April 12, 2010, EPA’s 

Region 9 Regional Administrator signed a final rule to take a 

limited approval and limited disapproval action on this SIP 

revision. The pre-publication version of this final rule has been 

placed in the docket. 

V. Final Action 

We believe that the plain language of CAA section 181(b)(3) 

mandates that we approve voluntary reclassification requests,11

and thus, EPA is taking final action to grant the State’s request 

for the following voluntary reclassifications: the San Joaquin 

Valley area from "serious" to "extreme"; the South Coast Air 

 

10 See, e.g., page 43658 of the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR 

43654)(“In regards to ... the requirements for SIPs regarding ... (“new source 

review”), the reclassifications would not lower the “major source” 

applicability thresholds required in a revised SIP ...”). 

11 The reclassification requests submitted by the State of California do not 

explicitly address Indian country located within the various ozone 

nonattainment areas. We have assumed that the State of California’s request 

relates only to the portions of the nonattainment areas that lie outside of 

Indian country because the State is not approved to implement the CAA in 

Indian country located within the state. 
31

Basin area from "severe-17" to "extreme"; and the Coachella 

Valley and Sacramento Metro areas from "serious" to "severe-15." 

Upon the effective date of this final action granting the 

reclassifications, these four areas are required to attain the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later 

than the applicable maximum attainment period set forth in 40 CFR 

51.903(a), Table 1: June 15, 2024 for San Joaquin Valley and the 

South Coast Air Basin; and June 15, 2019 for Coachella Valley and 

Sacramento Metro.12 

In connection with reclassification of the four subject 

areas, and for the reasons discussed above and in the proposed 

rule, we are establishing the deadline of no later than 12 months 

from the effective date of reclassification for submittal of 

revisions to the Sacramento Metro portion (Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD, Placer County APCD, and Feather River AQMD 

only) of the California SIP to meet the NSR requirements of a 

“severe-15” area. As discussed above, EPA is deferring the 

setting of a submittal deadline for revision to the California 

SIP for the four subject areas to meet the requirements of CAA 

section 185. With the exceptions of submittal requirements for 

 

12 Because we are reclassifying Indian country in these areas consistent with 

the classifications requested by the State (with the exception of the two 

reservations for which we are deferring reclassification), the new attainment 

dates apply area-wide to both State lands and Indian country located therein. 

Unlike the State of California, however, the Indian tribes located within the 

four subject areas are not subject to specific plan submittal and 

implementation deadlines under the new ozone classifications. See 40 CFR § 

49.4. 
32

SIP revisions for the NSR requirements for the Sacramento Metro 

area, and the section 185 fee requirements for the four subject 

areas, we have determined that the State has submitted SIP 

revisions for all other additional requirements for the four 

subject areas. As such, there is no need to establish a deadline 

for any other SIP revision requirement.13

In addition, consistent with our discretionary authority 

under CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4), and for the reasons 

discussed above and in the proposed rule, we are similarly 

finalizing our reclassification of all Indian country within the 

four areas, except Indian country pertaining to the Morongo and 

Pechanga Tribes, consistent with the reclassification requests 

for the surrounding non-Indian country lands. As discussed above, 

EPA is deferring the reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga 

Reservations pending our final decisions on their boundary change 

requests. In Table 1 below, we list tribes that have Indian 

country located within the four subject areas of this final 

action. Aside from the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations, we also 

note that the reclassifications apply to all Indian country 

within any of the four subject areas that exists at present or at 

any future time while the given area continues to be designated 

 

13 The deadline established through this final action relates solely to 

specific additional requirements triggered by the reclassification for the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS and should not be interpreted as relieving any of the four 

areas of any existing obligation that an area has based on its 1-hour ozone 

classification, or of existing obligations unrelated to attainment that are 

based on an area’s original 8-hour ozone classification. 
33

as nonattainment. Reclassification lowers the de minimis 

thresholds for the affected tribes, as per EPA’s General 

Conformity rule (40 CFR part 53, subpart B), but does not lower 

the applicable “major source” thresholds because the 25 tons per 

year “major source” thresholds for VOC and NOx in the Coachella 

Valley and Sacramento Metro areas, and the 10 tons per year 

thresholds for VOC and NOx in the San Joaquin Valley and South 

Coast areas, already apply under the areas’ 1-hour ozone 

classifications. 

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 

Community 
34

(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 the 

TorresMartinez 

Reservation)

Table Mountain 

Rancheria 

(including the 

Table Mountain 

Rancheria) 

Reclassification

Deferred for: 

Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians 

(including the 

Morongo 

Reservation) 

Twenty-Nine 

Palms Band of 

Mission 

Indians 

(including the 

Twenty-Nine 

Palms 

ReservationRiverside 

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 subject 

areas, we are revising the table for 8-hour ozone in 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 reclassifications 

under CAA section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely upon 

requests by the State, and EPA is required under the CAA to grant 

them. These actions do not, in and of themselves, impose any new 

requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition, because 

the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to 

the differently classified areas, and because those requirements 

are automatically triggered by reclassification, reclassification 

does not impose a materially adverse impact under Executive Order 

12866. With respect to Indian country, reclassifications do not 

establish deadlines for air quality plans or plan revisions. For 

these reasons, this final action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001). 

In addition, I certify that this final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), and that this final rule does not contain any unfunded 
36

mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 

104-4), because EPA is required to grant requests by states for 

voluntary reclassifications and such reclassifications in and of 

themselves do not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate, 

and because tribes are not subject to implementation plan 

submittal deadlines that apply to States as a result of 

reclassifications. 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) 

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

“meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is 

defined in section 1(a) of the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government 

and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes.” 

Several Indian tribes have Indian country located within the 

boundaries of the four subject ozone nonattainment areas. EPA 

implements federal Clean Air Act programs, including 

reclassifications, in these areas of Indian country consistent 

with our discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 
37

301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act. EPA has concluded that this final 

rule might have tribal implications for the purposes of E.O. 

13175, but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the 

tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal law. This final rule does not 

affect implementation of new source review for new or modified 

stationary sources proposed to be located in the Indian country 

areas proposed for reclassification, but might affect projects 

proposed in these areas that require Federal permits, approvals, 

or funding. Such projects are subject to the requirements of 

EPA’s General Conformity rule, and Federal permits, approvals, or 

funding for the projects may be more difficult to obtain because 

of the lower de minimis thresholds triggered by 

reclassification.14

Given the potential implications, EPA contacted tribal 

officials early in the process of developing this final rule to 

provide an opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into 

its development. On July 31, 2008, we sent letters to leaders of 

the 22 tribes with Indian country areas in the four subject 

nonattainment areas seeking their input on how we could best 

communicate with the tribes on the rulemaking effort.15 We 

 

14 As noted in section IV (“Public Comments and EPA Responses”), EPA is 

deferring the reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations 

pending our final decisions on their boundary change requests. Thus, for the 

time being, the current General Conformity de minimis thresholds (25 tons per 

year for VOC or NOx) continue to apply for projects proposed in the Morongo 

and Pechanga Reservations that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. 

15 In our proposed rule, we indicated that we sent letters to the leaders of 

21 tribes with Indian country areas in the four subject nonattainment areas. 
38

received responses from nine tribes, of whom four indicated faceto-face meetings as one of several preferred means of 

communication. Prior to our proposal we had met with two tribes 

that sought specific meetings on the reclassifications: Morongo 

Band of Mission Indians (“Morongo Tribe”) and Pechanga Band of 

Luiseño Mission Indians (“Pechanga Tribe”). Following the end of 

the comment period on our proposal, we met again with the Morongo 

and Pechanga Tribes to discuss the Tribes’ broader requests for 

separate nonattainment areas. We also contacted the Twenty-Nine 

Palms Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, and the Santa Rosa Band of 

Cahuilla Indians to clarify how the reclassification would affect 

each Tribe’s Indian country in Coachella Valley. EPA has 

carefully considered the views expressed by the Tribes, including 

(as described in detail above) the views expressed in written 

comments on EPA’s proposed reclassification rule. 

This final action also does not have Federalism implications 

because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the national government and 

the States, nor on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This final action 

 

On July 31, 2008 we had also sent a letter to the leader of the Twenty-Nine 

Palms Band of Luiseño Mission Indians in relation to the Tribe’s Indian 

country located within the Western Mojave Desert nonattainment area, for which 

the State of California has also submitted a reclassification request but for 

which we have deferred action. This Tribe is affected by this final action in 

relation to its Indian country in the Coachella Valley nonattainment area. 
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 Order 13045 

“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because EPA 

interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

Reclassification actions do not involve technical standards 

and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) also do not apply. In addition, this final rule does not 

impose an information collection burden under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States. This reclassification action relates to ozone, a 
40

pollutant that is regional in nature, and is not the type of 

action that could result in the types of local impacts addressed 

in Executive Order 12898. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., 

as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA 

will submit a report containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 

prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major 

rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 

the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [FEDERAL REGISTER

OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date of publication 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 of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
41

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 

CAA section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness 

areas. 

___/April 15, 2010/___ ___/signed by Jared Blumenfeld/___

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

Region IX 
42

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

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 81--[AMENDED] 

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

follows: 

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

Subpart C – [AMENDED] 

2. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for “California—Ozone 

(8-Hour Standard)” by revising the entries for “Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin, CA,” “Riverside Co. (Coachella Valley), CA,” 

“Sacramento Metro, CA,” and “San Joaquin Valley, CA,” and by 

adding footnotes “c” and “2” to read as follows: 

§81.305 California. 

* * * * * * * 

California – Ozone (8-Hour Standard) 

Designated Area 

Designationa Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

 * * * * * * * 

Los Angeles—South Coast Air 

Basin, CA: 

.................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

 Los Angeles County (part) .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

That portion of Los 

Angeles County which lies 

south and west of a line 

described as follows: 

Beginning at the Los 

Angeles-San Bernardino 

County boundary and 

running west along the 

Township line common to 
43

Township 3 North and 

Township 2 North, San 

Bernardino Base and 

Meridian; then north along 

the range line common to 

Range 8 West and Range 9 

West; then west along the 

Township line common to 

Township 4 North and 

Township 3 North; then 

north along the range line 

common to Range 12 West 

and Range 13 West to the 

southeast corner of 

Section 12, Township 5 

North and Range 13 West; 

then west along the south 

boundaries of Sections 12, 

11, 10, 9, 8, and 7, 

Township 5 North and Range 

13 West to the boundary of 

the Angeles National 

Forest which is collinear 

with the range line common 

to Range 13 West and Range 

14 West; then north and 

west along the Angeles 

National Forest boundary 

to the point of 

intersection with the 

Township line common to 

Township 7 North and 

Township 6 North (point is 

at the northwest corner of 

Section 4 in Township 6 

North and Range 14 West); 

then west along the 

Township line common to 

Township 7 North and 

Township 6 North; then 

north along the range line 

common to Range 15 West 

and Range 16 West to the 

southeast corner of 

Section 13, Township 7 

North and Range 16 West; 

then along the south 

boundaries of Sections 13, 

14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 

Township 7 North and Range 

16 West; then north along 

the range line common to 

Range 16 West and Range 17 

West to the north boundary 

of the Angeles National 

Forest (collinear with the 

Township line common to 

Township 8 North and 
44

Township 7 North); then 

west and north along the 

Angeles National Forest 

boundary to the point of 

intersection with the 

south boundary of the 

Rancho La Liebre Land 

Grant; then west and north 

along this land grant 

boundary to the Los 

Angeles-Kern County 

boundary. 

 Orange County .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

 Riverside County (part) .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

That portion of Riverside 

County, except that 

portion of the area 

defined below that lies 

within the Morongo 

Reservation or the 

Pechanga Reservation c, 

which lies to the west of 

a line described as 

follows: Beginning at the 

Riverside-San Diego County 

boundary and running north 

along the range line 

common to Range 4 East and 

Range 3 East, San 

Bernardino Base and 

Meridian; then east along 

the Township line common 

to Township 8 South and 

Township 7 South; then 

north along the range line 

common to Range 5 East and 

Range 4 East; then west 

along the Township line 

common to Township 6 South 

and Township 7 South to 

the southwest corner of 

Section 34, Township 6 

South, Range 4 East; then 

north along the west 

boundaries of Sections 34, 

27, 22, 15, 10, and 3, 

Township 6 South, Range 4 

East; then west along the 

Township line common to 

Township 5 South and 

Township 6 South; then 

north along the range line 

common to Range 4 East and 

Range 3 East; then west 

along the south boundaries 

 
45

of Sections 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Township 5 

South, Range 3 East; then 

north along the range line 

common to Range 2 East and 

Range 3 East; to the 

Riverside-San Bernardino 

County line. 

Morongo Reservation c .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Severe-17. 

Pechanga Reservation c .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Severe-17. 

 San Bernardino County (part) .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

That portion of San 

Bernardino County which 

lies south and west of a 

line described as follows: 

Beginning at the San 

Bernardino-Riverside 

County boundary and 

running north along the 

range line common to Range 

3 East and Range 2 East, 

San Bernardino Base and 

Meridian; then west along 

the Township line common 

to Township 3 North and 

Township 2 North to the 

San Bernardino-Los Angeles 

County boundary. 

 

 * * * * * * *

Riverside Co. (Coachella 

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 west 
46

along the Township line 

common to Township 6 South 

and Township 7 South to 

the southwest corner of 

Section 34, Township 6 

South, Range 4 East; then 

north along the west 

boundaries of Sections 34, 

27, 22, 15, 10, and 3, 

Township 6 South, Range 4 

East; then west along the 

Township line common to 

Township 5 South and 

Township 6 South; then 

north along the range line 

common to Range 4 East and 

Range 3 East; then west 

along the south boundaries 

of Sections 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Township 5 

South, Range 3 East; then 

north along the range line 

common to Range 2 East and 

Range 3 East; to the 

Riverside-San Bernardino 

County line. And that 

portion of Riverside 

County which lies to the 

west of a line described 

as follows: 

That segment of the 

southwestern boundary line 

of Hydrologic Unit Number 

18100100 within Riverside 

County, further described 

as follows: Beginning at 

the Riverside-Imperial 

County boundary and 

running north along the 

range line common to Range 

17 East and Range 16 East, 

San Bernardino Base and 

Meridian; then northwest 

along the ridge line of 

the Chuckwalla Mountains, 

through Township 8 South, 

Range 16 East and Township 

7 South, Range 16 East, 

until the Black Butte 

Mountain, elevation 4504'; 

then west and northwest 

along the ridge line to 

the southwest corner of 

Township 5 South, Range 14 

East; then north along the 

range line common to Range 

14 East and Range 13 East; 
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: .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Severe-15. 

 El Dorado County (part) .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Severe-15. 

All portions of the 

county, except that 

portion of El Dorado 

County within the drainage 

area naturally tributary 

to Lake Tahoe including 

said Lake. 

 

 Placer County (part) .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Severe-15. 

All portions of the county 

except that portion of 

Placer County within the 

drainage area naturally 

tributary to Lake Tahoe 

including said Lake, plus 

that area in the vicinity 

of the head of the Truckee 

River described as 

follows: Commencing at the 

point common to the 

aforementioned drainage 

area crestline and the 

line common to Townships 

15 North and 16 North, 

Mount Diablo Base and 

Meridian, and following 

that line in a westerly 

direction to the northwest 

corner of Section 3, 

Township 15 North, Range 

16 East, Mount Diablo Base 

and Meridian, thence south 

along the west line of 

Sections 3 and 10, 

Township 15 North, Range 

16 East, Mount Diablo Base 

and Meridian, to the 

intersection with the said 
48

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 the 

 
49

boundary between Solano 

and Sacramento Counties. 

 Sutter County (part) .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Severe-15. 

Portion south of a line 

connecting the northern 

border of Yolo County to 

the SW tip of Yuba County 

and continuing along the 

southern Yuba County 

border to Placer County. 

 

 Yolo County .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Severe-15. 

 * * * * * * *

San Joaquin Valley, CA: .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

 Fresno County .................. Nonattainment (2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

 Kern County (part) .................. Nonattainment (

2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

That portion of Kern 

County which lies west and 

north of a line described 

as follows: Beginning at 

the Kern-Los Angeles 

County boundary and 

running north and east 

along the northwest 

boundary of the Rancho La 

Libre Land Grant to the 

point of intersection with 

the range line common to 

R. 16 W. and R. 17 W., San 

Bernardino Base and 

Meridian; north along the 

range line to the point of 

intersection with the 

Rancho El Tejon Land Grant 

boundary; then southeast, 

northeast, and northwest 

along the boundary of the 

Rancho El Tejon Land Grant 

to the northwest corner of 

S. 3, T. 11 N., R. 17 W.; 

then west 1.2 miles; then 

north to the Rancho El 

Tejon Land Grant boundary; 

then northwest along the 

Rancho El Tejon line to 

the southeast corner of S. 

34, T. 32 S., R. 30 E., 

Mount Diablo Base and 

Meridian; then north to 

the northwest corner of S. 

35, T. 31 S., R. 30 E.; 
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 based on 

coordinates of latitude and longitude derived from EPA Region 9's 

GIS database and are illustrated in a map entitled “Eastern San 

Diego County Attainment Areas for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,” dated 

March 9, 2004, including an attached set of coordinates. The map 

and attached set of coordinates are available at EPA's Region 9 

Air Division office. The designated areas roughly approximate the 

boundaries of the reservations for these tribes, but their 

inclusion in this table is intended for CAA planning purposes 

only and is not intended to be a federal determination of the 
51

exact boundaries of the reservations. Also, the specific listing 

of these tribes in this table does not confer, deny, or withdraw 

Federal recognition of any of the tribes so listed nor any of the 

tribes not listed. 

c The use of reservation boundaries for this designation is for 

purposes of CAA planning only and is not intended to be a federal 

determination of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Nor 

does the specific listing of the Tribes in this table confer, 

deny, or withdraw Federal recognition of any of the Tribes listed 

or not listed. 

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

2 This date is [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: Insert date 30 days 

from the date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

* * * * * * *