18120 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The South Coast includes Orange County, the 

southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, 

southwestern San Bernardino County, and western 

Riverside County. See 40 CFR 81.305. 

2 Ground-level ozone is a gas that is formed by the 

reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the atmosphere in the 

presence of sunlight. These precursor emissions are 

emitted by many types of pollution sources, 

including stationary sources such as power plants 

and industrial emissions sources, mobile sources 

such as on-road and nonroad motor vehicles and 

engines, and smaller sources that are collectively 

referred to as ‘‘area sources.’’ 

3The Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians 

of the Pechanga Reservation (Pechanga Tribe or 

‘‘Tribe’’) is a federally-recognized tribe whose 

reservation (‘‘Pechanga Reservation’’ or 

‘‘reservation’’) straddles the boundary between 

western Riverside County and northern San Diego 

County where Temecula Valley meets the complex 

topography that forms the boundary between these 

two counties. 

4 In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone standard to 

0.08 ppm, 8-hour average (‘‘1997 8-hour ozone 

standard’’), and then, in 2008, lowered the eighthour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (‘‘2008 ozone 

standard’’). 

5 In proposing to revise the boundaries of the 

South Coast and San Diego air quality planning 

areas and to establish the Pechanga Reservation as 

a separate area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

the EPA applied the principles set forth in the 

EPA’s ‘‘Policy for Establishing Separate Air Quality 

Designations for Areas in Indian Country’’ (‘‘Tribal 

Designation Policy’’). See memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air 

Directors, Regions I–X, dated December 20, 2011, 

titled ‘‘Policy for Establishing Separate Air Quality 

Designations for Areas of Indian Country.’’ A copy 

of the Tribal Designation Policy can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/

guidance.htm. 

6We designated the Pechanga Reservation as a 

separate air quality planning area for the 2008 

ozone standard in 2012 (77 FR 30088, at 30109; 

May 21, 2012). More recently, we designated the 

Pechanga Reservation as a separate air quality 

planning area for the 2012 annual fine particle 

(PM2.5) standard. See 80 FR 2206, at 2225 (January 

15, 2015). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 49 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0869; FRL–9924–45- 

Region 9] 

Approval of Tribal Implementation Plan 

and Designation of Air Quality 

Planning Area; Pechanga Band of 

Luisen ̃o Mission Indians 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

revise the boundaries of the Southern 

California air quality planning areas to 

designate the reservation of the 

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission 

Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, 

California as a separate air quality 

planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

The EPA is also taking final action to 

approve the Tribe’s tribal 

implementation plan (‘‘TIP’’) for 

maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard within the Pechanga 

Reservation through 2025 because it 

meets the Clean Air Act’s and the EPA’s 

requirements for maintenance plans. 

Lastly, based in part on the approval of 

the maintenance plan, the EPA is 

granting a request from the Tribe to 

redesignate the Pechanga Reservation 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard because the 

area meets the statutory requirements 

for redesignation under the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 3, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0869 for this action. The index to the 

docket is available electronically at 

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: Ken 

Israels, Grants and Program Integration 

Office (AIR–8), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 

947–4102, israels.ken@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

II. Comments and Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On January 6, 2015 (80 FR 436), under 

section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘Act’’), the EPA proposed to 

revise the boundaries of the South 

Coast 1 and San Diego County air quality 

planning areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone 2 national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’) to 

designate the Pechanga Reservation 3 as 

a separate nonattainment area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard.4 We 

proposed to do so based on our 

conclusion that factors such as air 

quality data, meteorology, and 

topography do not definitively support 

inclusion of the reservation in either the 

South Coast or the San Diego County air 

quality planning areas, that emissions 

sources at the Pechanga Reservation 

contribute minimally to regional ozone 

concentrations, and that the 

jurisdictional boundaries factor should 

be given particular weight under these 

circumstances.5 Once this action is 

effective, the Pechanga air quality 

planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard will have the same boundaries 

as the Pechanga nonattainment area for 

the 2008 ozone standard and the 2012 

annual PM2.5 standard.6

Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA 

also proposed to approve the Pechanga 

Ozone Maintenance Plan, submitted by 

the Tribe on November 4, 2014, as the 

Tribe’s TIP for maintaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard within the 

Pechanga Reservation for ten years 

beyond redesignation, because it meets 

the requirements for maintenance plans 

under CAA section 175A. 

Lastly, under CAA section 107(d)(3), 

and based in part on the approval of the 

Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan, the 

EPA proposed to grant a request from 

the Tribe to redesignate the newlyestablished Pechanga Reservation ozone 

air quality planning area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

because the request meets the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act. References herein to 

our ‘‘proposed rule’’ refer to the 

proposed rule published on January 6, 

2015 at 80 FR 436 through 449. 

Generally, maintenance plans 

establish motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for the last year of the 

maintenance plan, at a minimum (40 

CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i)). However, the 

Pechanga Tribe did not include motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the last 

year of this maintenance plan because, 

at the time the maintenance plan was 

developed, the EPA had revoked the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for 

transportation conformity purposes, 

effective July 20, 2013. See 77 FR 30160 

(May 21, 2012). However, on December 

23, 2014, the DC Circuit held that the 

EPA lacked authority for such a partial 

revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and effectively reinstituted 

transportation conformity requirements 

for areas designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard or 

redesignated to attainment with an 

approved CAA section 175A 

maintenance plan. The Court did not 

question the EPA’s authority to revoke 

a standard in total. See Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA (D.C. 

Cir. No. 12–1321, December 23, 2014). 

Since the Court’s decision, the EPA has 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18121 

7The transportation conformity rule includes the 

requirements for the tests that must be satisfied in 

areas such as the Pechanga Reservation area which 

does not have its own motor vehicle emission 

budgets but whose emissions were previously 

included in budgets for a larger nonattainment area. 

See 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2)(ii). 

8On March 3, 2015, the EPA received a late 

comment letter from the Tribe responding to the 

SCAQMD’s comment letter on the proposed rule. 

We have not provided responses to the comments 

in the Tribe’s letter in this document but have 

included it in the docket for this rulemaking. 

published a final rule that, among other 

things, revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for all purposes, including 

transportation conformity, effective 

April 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 

6, 2015). After that date, transportation 

conformity will no longer be required 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

Pechanga Reservation air quality 

planning area will remain designated 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

standard, and transportation conformity 

continues to apply for that NAAQS.7

As we explained in our proposed rule, 

upon the effective date of our action, 

certain CAA requirements that had 

applied to the Pechanga Reservation by 

virtue of its inclusion in the South Coast 

‘‘Extreme’’ ozone nonattainment area for 

the 1-hour ozone standard no longer 

apply, nor do the requirements that had 

applied to the reservation by virtue of 

its designation as ‘‘Severe-17’’ for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

requirements that no longer apply 

include, among others, the 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(‘‘NNSR’’) major source threshold of 10 

tons per year (tpy) for ozone precursor 

emissions in ‘‘Extreme’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas. New or modified 

stationary sources proposed at the 

Pechanga Reservation remain subject to 

major source nonattainment NNSR, 

however, by virtue of the reservation’s 

classification as a ‘‘Moderate’’ ozone 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

standard. The NNSR major source 

threshold in ‘‘Moderate’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas is 100 tpy for VOC 

or NOX. 

In our proposed rule, we also 

explained that, in concluding that it is 

appropriate to propose approval of the 

Tribe’s request for boundary changes 

and designation to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA 

relies heavily on the fact that this is a 

request from a federally-recognized 

tribal government. The Pechanga Tribe 

has been determined previously to 

qualify for treatment in the same 

manner as a state (also referred to as 

‘‘TAS’’) for purposes of CAA section 

107(d) and sections 110 and 175A and 

the submitted maintenance plan, and 

the lands under consideration here are 

subject to the EPA’s Tribal Designation 

Policy. The EPA finds that the Tribe’s 

request for a separate area is consistent 

with the principles set forth in that 

policy. 

The EPA also explained in the 

proposed rule that our proposed action 

relies on the facts that there are valid 

monitoring data showing that current air 

quality at the Pechanga Reservation 

meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

and that the emissions from sources on 

the Pechanga Reservation are minimal 

and do not contribute in any meaningful 

way to ambient concentrations in any 

nearby ozone nonattainment area. 

Finally, we noted that the action to 

establish a separate air quality planning 

area would simplify implementation of 

the ozone standards by eliminating the 

division of the reservation into two 

different planning areas for the same 

criteria pollutant standard, the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. This separate 

treatment of the Pechanga Reservation is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior final 

actions to reclassify the South Coast 

ozone nonattainment area in 2010, to 

establish a separate air quality planning 

area for the 2008 ozone standard in 

2012, and to establish a separate air 

quality planning area for the 2012 

annual PM2.5 standard in 2015. In 

summary, we noted in our proposed 

rule that the proposed changes in the 

boundaries and the status of this area 

are supported by several unique factors 

that are unlikely to be present in other 

nonattainment areas. 

Please see our proposed rule and 

related technical support document 

(TSD) for additional background 

information about the Pechanga 

Reservation, the regulatory context, the 

Tribe’s request for a boundary change, 

and the Tribe’s redesignation request, as 

well as a more detailed explanation of 

our rationale for the proposed actions. 

II. Comments and Responses 

Our proposed rule provided for a 30- 

day comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD or ‘‘District’’).8 We 

have summarized the comments, and 

provide responses in the paragraphs that 

follow. 

SCAQMD Comment #1: The SCAQMD 

states that it knows of no precedent for 

the EPA to determine the attainment 

status for an entire separate 

nonattainment area based on monitors 

located outside that area, at least where 

the data are being used to support 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. In addition to the lack of 

precedent, the SCAQMD also cites 

statements by the EPA to the effect that 

monitoring requirements apply ‘‘in the 

area;’’ the EPA’s definition of ‘‘design 

value,’’ which refers to the highest site 

‘‘in any attainment area or 

nonattainment area;’’ and the decision 

by the EPA not to designate the 

Pechanga Reservation as a separate 

‘‘attainment’’ area for the 2008 ozone 

standard based on the lack of a 

regulatory monitor at the reservation, as 

support for the SCAQMD’s conclusion 

that EPA’s regulations do not authorize 

monitoring data collected outside a 

given nonattainment area to be used as 

the basis for determining whether a 

nonattainment area is attaining the 

NAAQS for the purposes of 

redesignation. Lastly, the SCAQMD 

contends that the EPA must justify its 

approach and must demonstrate why it 

will not lead to further attempts by areas 

within the South Coast to establish 

separate ozone planning areas to obtain 

the benefits of a lower ozone 

classification or a redesignation to 

attainment. 

Response to SCAQMD Comment #1: 

As described at pages 442 and 443 of 

our proposed rule, we proposed a 

finding of attainment based on (1) ozone 

data collected at a monitor (the 

‘‘Temecula’’ monitor) located 

approximately 10 miles north of the 

Pechanga Reservation and (2) a 

comparison of Temecula data with 

available data from the Pechanga ozone 

monitor. The Temecula data establishes 

an ozone design value below the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, and the 

Pechanga data, which includes two 

complete years (2012 and 2013) of 

regulatory data, provides the basis for 

comparison with corresponding 

Temecula data and thereby establishes 

representativeness. 

Thus, we are not relying solely on the 

out-of-area data in that we determined 

that the Temecula data was 

representative of ozone conditions on 

the Pechanga Reservation based in part 

on quality-assured and certified ambient 

ozone data collected at the regulatory 

monitor operated on the Pechanga 

Reservation. Data collected from the 

Pechanga monitor includes two 

complete years (2012 and 2013) with 

which to compare data from the 

Temecula data, and as shown in table 1 

of our proposed rule (80 FR at 443), the 

fourth highest 8-hour ozone 

concentrations track very closely at the 

two sites during those two years, which 

is expected considering that ozone 

pollution is regional in nature, the two 

monitors are only 10 miles apart, and no 

significant topographic barriers lie 

between the two monitoring sites. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

9Please see the docket item titled, ‘‘Maximum 

Daily 8-hour Ozone Concentrations for Selected 

Monitors 2012–2014’’ for the updated data 

presentation. 

10The 2008 ozone standard is 0.075 ppm, 8-hour 

average, and while the data in table 1 of this 

document from the Pechanga monitor are consistent 

with today’s final determination that the Pechanga 

Reservation has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, the data are also consistent with the 

EPA’s designation of the Pechanga Reservation as 

a nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard. 

Also, since publication of the 

proposed rule, additional preliminary 

data for year 2014 has become available 

from both the Temecula and Pechanga 

monitors. Table 1 below presents the 

data for 2012 and 2013 previously 

presented in the proposed rule and adds 

preliminary data for 2014. While 

available preliminary 2014 data suggests 

that higher ozone concentrations were 

measured at the Pechanga monitor than 

at the Temecula monitor, the 

comparison of data between the two 

sites for 2014 is constrained by the fact 

that available preliminary 2014 data for 

Temecula only runs through the end of 

September 2014 and that data from 

August 29th–September 17th, which is 

during the peak ozone season, is 

missing because of a data logger 

problem, whereas the 2014 data from 

the Pechanga monitor reflects all four 

quarters. Despite its limitations, the 

available preliminary data for 2014 

continues to be consistent with our 

proposed determination of attainment 

(which is based on complete, qualityassured, and certified data from the 

Temecula monitor for years 2011–2013) 

and is, at the very least, not inconsistent 

with our determination that the 

Temecula data are representative of 

ozone conditions at the Pechanga 

Reservation. Please see the docket of 

this final action for an updated analysis 

that further demonstrates the 

representativeness of the Temecula data 

for the purposes of this action.9

TABLE 1—FOURTH HIGHEST 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AT TEMECULA AND PECHANGA MONITORS, 2012–2014, 

PPM

Monitor 

(site code) 2012 2013 2014 a

2012–2014 

design 

value a b

Temecula (06–065–0016) ................................................................................ 0.077 0.074 0.074 0.075 

Pechanga (06–065–0009) ............................................................................... 0.075 0.074 0.079 0.076 

aAll data for year 2014 are preliminary. The 2014 data shown for the Temecula monitor reflects preliminary data from AQS for the first three 

quarters of 2014. The 2014 data for the Pechanga monitor reflect preliminary data for all four quarters. bThe 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained where the design value is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. 

Given the rounding conventions, however, attainment is achieved where design values are 0.084 ppm or less. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, 

section 2.3. The preliminary design values in this table are well below the relevant ozone NAAQS. 

Source: AQS Data Summary Report, dated May 16, 2014; AQS Data Summary Report, dated February 25, 2015. 

Our decision to rely on the Temecula 

data to determine that the Pechanga 

Reservation has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard is not inconsistent 

with the EPA’s decision not to grant 

Pechanga’s request for designation as a 

separate attainment area for the 2008 

ozone standard. The SCAQMD is correct 

that, in our final rule designating areas 

for the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 

30088, May 21, 2012), we decided not 

to designate the Pechanga Reservation 

as a separate attainment area on the 

grounds that the Pechanga Tribe did not 

operate a regulatory monitor that 

showed that the area in fact was 

attaining the 2008 ozone standard.10

Instead, we designated the Pechanga 

Reservation as a separate nonattainment 

area for the 2008 ozone standard, and 

we did so based on ozone data from a 

proximate, state regulatory monitor (at 

Lake Elsinore). At the time of the 

designation for the 2008 ozone standard, 

the SCAQMD’s Temecula monitor, 

which began monitoring ozone in Fall of 

2010, only had one year of complete 

ozone data, and the SCAQMD’s Lake 

Elsinore monitoring site was the nearest 

proximate regulatory ozone monitor 

with complete data. 

The EPA has considered the Pechanga 

monitor as a regulatory monitor since 

May 2010, but we invalidated the 

regulatory data collected prior to the 

correction of an equipment problem 

discovered in 2011 (and discussed 

below in Response to SCAQMD 

Comment #2), and thus the data from 

the Pechanga monitor were unavailable 

for use for the purposes of designating 

areas for the 2008 ozone standard. 

Regulatory monitors are those for which 

the monitoring objective is comparison 

with the NAAQS and that have 

adequately achieved the quality 

assurance and data requirements for 

regulatory decision making. As noted in 

our proposed rule (at 80 FR at 477), the 

Pechanga Tribe has committed in its 

maintenance plan to continue operating 

an ambient ozone monitor at the 

reservation, quality assuring the 

resulting monitoring data, and entering 

all data in AQS in accordance with 

federal requirements and guidelines to 

verify continued attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. 

Lastly, as to the potential for other 

areas within the South Coast to rely on 

out-of-area monitoring data to establish 

separate ozone planning areas to obtain 

the benefits of a lower ozone 

classification or a redesignation to 

attainment, we note that each request 

for a boundary change or a change in 

designation from ‘‘nonattainment’’ to 

‘‘attainment’’ is evaluated on a case-bycase basis to determine whether all 

applicable CAA requirements are met, 

and different criteria apply depending 

upon the type of request. For boundary 

change requests, the EPA takes into 

account a number of factors, including 

air quality data, emissions sources, 

geographical and meteorological 

considerations, and jurisdiction, among 

others, when evaluating such requests. 

It is not necessarily the case that the 

same set of factors supporting our action 

on Pechanga Tribe’s request for a 

separate area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard would be relevant to (or would 

support) any other tribe’s request for 

such a change. Requests for 

redesignation from ‘‘nonattainment’’ to 

‘‘attainment’’ from states or tribes are 

evaluated based on the criteria set forth 

in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). 

SCAQMD Comment #2: The SCAQMD 

suggests that the ambient values of 

monitoring data from the Pechanga 

monitor are increasing over time while 

the monitoring data from the SCAQMD 

Temecula monitor are decreasing. Based 

on that assertion, the SCAQMD does not 

believe that the SCAQMD Temecula 

monitoring data are representative of air 

quality on the Pechanga Reservation and 

asserts that, based on their conclusion 

that an upward trend in concentrations 

is occurring at the reservation, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18123 

11See EPA Region IX, Pechanga Ozone Data 

Assessment, August 4, 2011. 

12See pages II–2–28 through II–2–37 in Appendix 

II (‘‘Current Air Quality’’) of the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District’s 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan (February 2013) for figures 

illustrating the spatial distribution of elevated 

ozone concentrations in the South Coast. 

13See memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, titled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ dated September 4, 1992. 

14See figure 5–13 of the SCAQMD’s 2012 Final 

Air Quality Management Plan (February 2013). 

15 ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 

refers to (1) 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, (2) 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 (3) all Indian 

allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way running 

through the same. 

maintenance plan does not demonstrate 

that it will maintain levels below the 

standard for the next ten years. The 

SCAQMD requests that the EPA provide 

a reasoned explanation demonstrating 

that this observed increasing trend at 

the Pechanga Reservation is not real, 

and that Pechanga ozone levels are 

actually decreasing as would be 

expected if Temecula data were 

representative. 

Response to SCAQMD Comment #2: 

The Pechanga Tribe began operation of 

an ozone monitor in mid-2008. In 2011, 

the EPA discovered an equipment 

problem at the Pechanga monitor that 

had the effect of diluting ambient ozone 

concentrations recorded by the monitor. 

The problem was corrected by the Tribe 

later in 2011, and the EPA considers the 

data collected since the problem was 

corrected to be valid for regulatory 

purposes. Conversely, the EPA 

considers the data collected prior to 

correction of the equipment problem to 

be invalid for NAAQS comparison 

purposes. The basis for invalidating the 

data are a comparison of ozone 

concentrations measured at other ozone 

monitors in the region that shows 

artificially low ozone readings at the 

Pechanga monitoring site throughout all 

of 2009, and all of 2010, suggesting that 

the equipment problem affected data 

values throughout those periods.11

Since the problem was corrected, in 

contrast to the earlier-collected data, the 

ozone data from the Pechanga monitor 

track well with other monitors in the 

region, particularly the Temecula 

monitor. 

Given that the data collected at the 

Pechanga monitor from 2008 through 

2011 (i.e., until equipment correction in 

late 2011) are invalid, we disagree with 

the SCAQMD’s contention that the data 

shows that ozone concentrations have 

trended upward at the Pechanga 

Reservation but have trended downward 

at the Temecula site. While the 

preliminary data for 2014 collected at 

the Pechanga and Temecula sites are 

useful in showing that both monitors 

remain well below the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, we do not believe that 

a conclusion can be drawn regarding 

potential differences in ozone 

concentration trends at the two sites. 

First, the preliminary 2014 Temecula 

data has the potential to be artificially 

low due to missing data during the peak 

ozone season (see Response to SCAQMD 

Comment #1). Second, because we only 

have two complete years of data (2012 

and 2013) and one year of preliminary 

data (2014) from the Pechanga monitor, 

we do not believe that we have 

sufficient data to establish a long-term 

trend of ozone concentrations at the 

Pechanga Reservation. However, we 

need only three years of data for an 

attainment determination, and we have 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

and certified data showing that the 

ozone concentrations at the Temecula 

site meet the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Also, taking into account 

preliminary 2014 data, we now have 

three years of ambient ozone 

concentration data from the Pechanga 

monitor that show a preliminary design 

value for 2012–2014 of 0.076 ppm, i.e., 

well below the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard (0.084 ppm or less). Moreover, 

as cited in our proposed rule (on page 

440), with respect to our determination 

of representativeness, we are not relying 

solely on the limited ozone data from 

the two monitors but are also relying on 

modeling data published by the 

SCAQMD.12

As to future ozone concentrations, the 

Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan’s 

demonstration of maintenance through 

2025 is not based on an evaluation of 

ambient ozone trends but rather on an 

evaluation of emissions inventory data 

for the South Coast that shows a 

downward trend in ozone precursor 

emissions (VOC and NOX) through the 

maintenance period. See table 2 of our 

proposed rule at 80 FR 447. Generally, 

maintenance plans can demonstrate 

maintenance of the standard by either 

showing that future emissions of a 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or by modeling to show that 

the future mix of sources and emission 

rates will not cause a violation of the 

standard.13 In the proposed rule, we 

agree that the downward trend in 

regional emissions of ozone precursors 

is sufficient to demonstrate maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

through 2025. We also note, however, 

that modeling results published by the 

SCAQMD is consistent with our 

approval of the maintenance 

demonstration in the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan.14

SCAQMD Comment #3: The SCAQMD 

contends that the maintenance plan fails 

to include sufficient control measures to 

prevent adverse effects from emissions 

growth on the reservation. Specifically, 

SCAQMD seeks confirmation that the 

EPA’s minor NSR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Indian 

country applies on the Pechanga 

Reservation, but notes that, even if it 

does apply, the EPA may not have 

adequate resources to properly 

implement such a program. Further, the 

SCAQMD is concerned that new or 

modified stationary sources will not 

necessarily be subject to the same 

requirements (such as those related to 

control technology and offsets) under 

the EPA’s Indian country minor NSR 

rule as would apply if the sources were 

proposed in areas subject to the 

SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. The SCAQMD 

contends that different requirements for 

new or modified stationary sources, 

particularly the increase in the 

applicable NNSR major source 

threshold from 10 tpy to 100 tpy for 

VOC and NOX due to this action, will 

create a significant competitive 

advantage and attract development 

beyond that anticipated in the 

maintenance plan. Further, the 

SCAQMD further contends that such 

unanticipated growth could result in 

higher-than-expected emissions with 

the potential to adversely affect ozone 

air quality downwind of the reservation. 

Response to SCAQMD Comment #3: 

We do not agree with the SCAQMD’s 

assertions. First, in our proposed rule, 

we indicate that EPA’s regulations 

governing review and permitting of new 

or modified stationary sources in Indian 

country 15 (i.e., ‘‘New Source Review’’ or 

NSR) apply to the Pechanga 

Reservation. See 80 FR at 443 and 444. 

These regulations include the EPA’s 

Indian country minor NSR program, 

codified at 40 CFR 49.151 through 

49.161, and the Indian country major 

NSR program for nonattainment areas 

(referred to as ‘‘nonattainment NSR’’ or 

‘‘NNSR’’), codified at 40 CFR 49.166 

through 49.173. The EPA’s regulations 

for the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), codified at 40 CFR 

52.21, also apply to any new major 

source or major modification proposed 

at the Pechanga Reservation except for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

16The Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan 

predicts an increase in NOX emissions from 

stationary sources; however, the plan predicts that 

overall emissions associated with the reservation 

would decline due to offsetting reductions in 

mobile source emissions. 

17Certain low-emitting new sources are exempt 

from permitting under the EPA’s Indian country 

minor NSR program. Specifically, given the 

continued status of the Pechanga Reservation as a 

‘‘nonattainment’’ area for the 2008 ozone standard, 

notwithstanding today’s action to redesignate the 

reservation as ‘‘attainment’’ for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, the applicable minor source 

exemption thresholds are 2 tpy for VOC and 5 tpy 

of NOX. See 40 CFR 49.153 (table 1 to § 49.153). 

the emissions from such source or 

modification that are covered by NNSR. 

Second, as to whether the EPA has 

adequate resources to properly 

implement the Indian country minor 

source program, we note that, 

historically, the EPA has administered 

the PSD program under 40 CFR 52.21 in 

many parts of California but that, in 

recent years, the EPA has successfully 

transferred its PSD permitting 

responsibilities to the relevant 

California air districts. We have done so 

by working with the air districts and the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

to develop, adopt and submit permitting 

rules that meet the PSD SIP 

requirements. Once approved, the 

responsibility for PSD permitting vests 

in the air districts, and while the EPA 

continues to have a role in district PSD 

permit reviews, the resource demands 

are far fewer than where the EPA must 

administer the entire PSD program in a 

given district. Moreover, EPA permitting 

resources that had been used to draft 

PSD permits in these districts can then 

be reassigned to other tasks, including 

those related to the Indian country 

minor NSR program. Since 2012, the 

EPA has approved the PSD SIPs for the 

following California air districts: San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD) (77 FR 65305, 

October 26, 2012); and Eastern Kern 

APCD, Imperial County APCD, Placer 

County APCD, and Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management District (77 FR 

73316, December 10, 2012). 

In addition, as the SCAQMD notes in 

its comments, the EPA can lighten its 

load by implementing ‘‘general 

permits,’’ and as the SCAQMD also 

notes, the EPA has proposed, but not yet 

finalized, such permits for the Indian 

country minor NSR program. Our 

proposed general permits cover 11 

broad source categories that we expect 

to be most relevant in the context of 

Indian country minor NSR. See 79 FR 

2546 (January 14, 2014) and 79 FR 

41846 (July 17, 2014). We expect to 

finalize the first set of general permits 

(i.e., those proposed in January 2014) in 

the near term, and such permits will 

streamline the permitting process for the 

EPA in connection with administration 

of the Indian country minor NSR 

program. 

Third, the EPA notes that, with or 

without this action, new or modified 

sources on the Pechanga Reservation are 

already subject to the requirements of 

the EPA’s Indian country NSR rules, as 

cited above. Our action today does not 

change this fact or change the stringency 

of EPA’s Indian country NSR rules. We 

recognize that, in some respects, EPA’s 

Indian country NSR rules are less 

stringent than the corresponding 

requirements under the SCAQMD’s NSR 

rules that apply outside Indian country 

in the South Coast. For example, under 

the SCAQMD’s NSR rules, certain new 

or modified minor sources are subject to 

offset requirements whereas no such 

requirements apply under the EPA’s 

Indian country minor NSR rule. 

However, with respect to control 

technology requirements, while the 

Indian country NSR rules do not 

specifically require new or modified 

minor sources to meet best available 

control technology (BACT) or lowest 

achievable emission rate (LAER) level of 

control per se, the rules do require the 

EPA (or the Indian Tribe in cases where 

a Tribal agency is assisting the EPA with 

administration of the program through a 

delegation) to conduct a case-by-case 

control technology review to determine 

the appropriate level of control, if any, 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved, as well as the corresponding 

emission limitations for the affected 

emission units at the new or modified 

source. See 40 CFR 49.154(c). In 

carrying out this determination, among 

other considerations, the EPA takes into 

account typical control technology or 

other emission reduction measures used 

by similar sources in surrounding areas. 

See 40 CFR 49.154(c)(1)(ii). Thus, the 

corresponding control technology 

requirements (i.e., minor source 

‘‘BACT’’) that the SCAQMD applies to 

minor sources subject to its authority 

would inform the EPA’s determination 

regarding control technology 

requirements and associated emission 

limitations for new or modified minor 

stationary sources on the Pechanga 

Reservation. 

Nonetheless, we recognize that our 

actions today will result in an increase 

in the applicable major source NSR 

threshold from 10 tpy to 100 tpy for 

ozone precursor emissions, which 

means that new or modified sources on 

the Pechanga Reservation with potential 

to emit (‘‘PTE’’) between 10 and 100 tpy 

of VOC or NOX will no longer be subject 

to the LAER and emissions offset 

requirements that otherwise would have 

applied under the EPA’s Indian country 

major source NNSR rule but instead will 

be subject to the control technology 

review described above for new or 

modified minor sources under the EPA’s 

Indian country minor NSR rule. 

However, applicable air pollution 

regulations and requirements are but 

one of many factors that influence 

business development decisions and we 

do not have information that supports a 

conclusion that the Pechanga 

Reservation will attract new 

development at such a rate as to result 

in emissions growth beyond that 

anticipated in the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan. 

Fourth, the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan projects that current 

stationary source emissions at the 

Pechanga Reservation will increase 33 

percent for NOX over the same period.16

The basic assumption used to develop 

these projections is that, over the next 

ten years, the Pechanga Resort and 

Casino would experience steady growth 

that would lead to increased NOX

emissions by sources such as the 

existing boilers due to greater usage 

rates. We believe that the plan’s 

assumption that, over the next ten years, 

changes in emissions at the reservation 

will stem from expansion of the existing 

resort and casino, rather than from 

development of new types of 

commercial or industrial businesses, is 

reasonable. 

The SCAQMD is correct in noting that 

the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan’s 

projection in emissions associated with 

the Pechanga Reservation do not 

account for emissions growth from 

significant new stationary sources; 

however, there is no evidence of any 

specific new stationary sources that are 

proposed at the reservation, and as 

noted above, air pollution control 

considerations are simply one of many 

considerations that businesses take into 

account when deciding to develop at a 

given site. Without such evidence, the 

EPA declines to speculate on the types 

or number of new stationary sources 

that might locate at the reservation over 

the next ten years (or their associated 

emissions and downwind impacts) on 

account of the change in air pollution 

control requirements (i.e., higher major 

source threshold for NNSR). 

Furthermore, any new stationary 

sources would be subject to the EPA’s 

review under the Indian country minor 

NSR rules,17 the Indian country NNSR 

rules, or the PSD regulation. All three 

programs provide for control technology 

review and air quality impacts analysis, 

and thus, we can reasonably rely on 

such review to ensure that emission 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18125 

18These principles are set forth in the EPA’s 

guidance document from John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, titled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas for Attainment,’’ dated September 4, 1992, 

page 4. 

19When Congress intended CAA provisions to 

apply in an area, it did so explicitly. See, e.g., CAA 

section 182(b)(1)(B) (‘‘. . . the term ‘‘baseline 

emissions’’ means . . . emissions from all 

anthropogenic sources in the area. . . .’’) (emphasis 

added.) 

20See ‘‘A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ Committee Print, 103rd 

Congress, 1st Session, November 1993. The relevant 

pages for section 107 are listed on pages 10818– 

10919 of the section-by-section index found at the 

end of volume VI. 

21The SCAQMD also notes an apparent 

discrepancy in the population figures for the 

reservation. The proposed rule notes 800 residents 

whereas the Tribe’s August 19, 2014 Application for 

Treatment as a State identifies only 500 residents. 

growth from new or modified stationary 

sources at the Pechanga Reservation is 

controlled to the extent necessary to 

protect air quality at the reservation and 

at locations downwind of the 

reservation. Concerning the SCAQMD’s 

concern that new construction on the 

Pechanga Reservation could cause 

attainment problems in other areas, the 

EPA’s and the Tribe’s responsibilities to 

other areas could be addressed under 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 126. 

SCAQMD Comment #4: The SCAQMD 

challenges the EPA’s reliance on 

upwind, out-of-area controls that do not 

apply on the Pechanga Reservation as 

constituting acceptable ‘‘other 

permanent and enforceable measures’’ 

that provide permanent and enforceable 

reductions and related improvement in 

air quality as required for redesignation 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). The 

SCAQMD contends that, while some 

reliance on out-of-area controls may be 

appropriate, the EPA’s near-total 

reliance on such controls is not 

reasonable. The SCAQMD believes that 

local areas must also do their part to 

improve air quality and reach 

attainment of the standard. 

Response to SCAQMD Comment #4: 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is one of 

five statutory criteria that the EPA must 

use to evaluate requests for 

redesignation of an area from 

nonattainment to attainment. It 

precludes such redesignation unless the 

EPA determines that the improvement 

in air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable implementation plan and 

applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions. (In this context, 

‘‘applicable implementation plan’’ refers 

to the TIP.) As such, the criterion calls 

for the identification of the measures 

that provided the emissions reductions 

that resulted in corresponding 

reductions in ambient concentrations 

such that, where the standard was once 

violated, the standard is now attained. 

The evaluation under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) also involves a 

determination that the improvement in 

air quality is not due to temporary 

reductions in emission rates due to 

temporary adverse economic conditions 

or unusually favorable meteorology.18

The purpose of the criterion is to 

ensure the permanence and 

enforceability of reductions that have 

provided for improved air quality and 

attainment of the standard. The statute 

does not qualify the phrase ‘‘other 

permanent and enforceable reductions’’ 

with a reference to those reductions that 

are in effect in the area, and thus, it does 

not matter whether the measures 

responsible for attainment are in effect 

in the area for which a redesignation 

request is being evaluated but only that 

they are permanent and enforceable.19

For instance, it is common knowledge 

that states in the Eastern United States 

rely in part on emissions reductions 

from measures adopted by upwind 

states in attaining the standard. The 

degree of reliance differs among the 

states, of course, but those measures 

adopted in the upwind states qualify as 

‘‘other permanent and enforceable 

reductions’’ for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). Given the 

language of this particular phrase of 

section 107, reliance on the legislative 

history for interpretative purposes is not 

necessary, but the EPA, in response to 

this comment, did review the relevant 

legislative history and found no 

indication of any special meaning or 

limitation to the phrase ‘‘other 

permanent or enforceable reductions’’ 

for the purposes of redesignation.20

Absent clear legislative history to the 

contrary, the EPA’s interpretation of the 

statute is reasonable. 

In this instance, we found that the 

improvement in air quality at the 

Pechanga Reservation is the result of 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions from applicable federal air 

pollutant control regulations, 

particularly those that control emissions 

from on-road and nonroad vehicles, and 

‘‘other permanent and enforceable 

reductions’’ from upwind sources 

resulting from CARB and SCAQMD 

regulations. See our proposed rule at 

page 446. All of the relevant CARB and 

SCAQMD regulations are either subject 

to a waiver or authorization under CAA 

section 209 or are approved by the EPA 

into the California SIP, and thus are 

permanent and enforceable for the 

purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

As to the SCAQMD’s contention that, 

while some reliance on upwind out-ofarea reductions may be appropriate, 

local areas must do their part, we note 

that, with respect to section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii), the statute simply 

requires the EPA to conclude that the 

measures that caused the improvement 

in air quality are permanent and 

enforceable. In this case, the identified 

measures on which we rely are 

permanent and enforceable, and they 

resulted in, and will continue to result 

in, reduced ozone concentrations on the 

Pechanga Reservation. The SCAQMD 

does not identify any specific measure 

that it believes should have been 

imposed within the reservation. Instead, 

the SCAQMD simply asserts that it is 

unreasonable for the EPA to find that 

section 107(d)(3)(iii) is satisfied in a 

given area without significant local 

controls in that area. 

SCAQMD Comment #5: The SCAQMD 

states that the EPA must ensure that the 

Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan does 

not underestimate existing and future 

emissions at the reservation. The 

SCAQMD suggests that the maintenance 

plan may be underestimating such 

emissions because the on-road mobile 

emissions estimates were scaled to 

South Coast projections based on 

relative population (i.e., the population 

of the Pechanga Reservation relative to 

the overall population within the South 

Coast) whereas the Pechanga Resort and 

Casino generates a significant number of 

vehicle trips that are unrelated to the 

population of the reservation.21

Response to SCAQMD Comment #5: 

The SCAQMD is correct that the 

emissions inventory for the Pechanga 

Reservation in the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan is based on a 

population of approximately 500 (the 

actual number used for the estimates is 

467) and that on-road mobile emissions 

were scaled based on relative 

population. First, with respect to 

population, the population of Pechanga 

Reservation (467 full-time residents) 

used in the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan to scale regional 

emissions is correct. The higher value 

(800 residents) cited in the proposed 

rule at page 437 is incorrect. 

Second, we agree that use of scaling 

of regional emissions based on 

population may underestimate on-road 

mobile emissions at the Pechanga 

Reservation given the significant 

number of non-resident motor vehicle 

trips generated by the Pechanga Resort 

and Casino. Therefore, for this final 

rule, we re-calculated vehicle emissions 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

22The average daily trip value for non-residents 

is based on a trip generation rate of 4.5 daily trips 

per slot machine from the Draft Tribal 

Environmental Impact Report for the Pala Casino 

and Spa Expansion Project (November 28, 2006), 

page 59. Resident trips assumed 10 daily trips per 

dwelling unit. Non-resident vehicle mix is assumed 

to be the same as that used to calculate vehicle 

emissions for the Graton Resort and Casino project. 

23 Documentation for the revised on-road motor 

vehicle emissions estimates is contained in a 

document titled ‘‘Pechanga Casino—Emissions 

Inventory,’’ dated March 16, 2015. 

24See John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, titled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas for 

Attainment,’’ dated September 4, 1992, page 12. 

using EMFAC2011 emissions factors for 

year 2012 based on the following 

assumptions: 17,100 average daily 

vehicle trips associated with nonresidents and 1,870 daily vehicle trips 

associated with residents; 22 0.5 miles 

per trip on the reservation for nonresident trips and 2.0 miles per trip on 

the reservation for trips by reservation 

residents; and a non-resident vehicle 

mix based on data from another Indian 

casino and resort. Resident trips were 

assumed to be light-duty autos and 

trucks. 

For year 2025, we conservatively 

increased non-resident vehicle trips by 

33% and estimated the corresponding 

emissions using year 2025 emissions 

factors from EMFAC2011. Interim year 

(2015 and 2020) emissions were 

estimated by interpolating the number 

of trips between 2012 and 2025 and 

using the applicable year’s EMFAC2011 

emissions rates. We present the revised 

emissions estimates in table 2 below, 

which presents the same emissions 

inventory information as table 2 from 

the proposed rule except for the revised 

estimates for the Pechanga 

Reservation.23

TABLE 2—OZONE PRECURSOR EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR PECHANGA RESERVATION AND SOUTH COAST, 2012, 2015, 

2020 AND 2025 

[Summer-day average, tons per day] 

Ozone precursor 2012 2015 2020 2025 

Pechanga Reservation (Based on data as shown in Maintenance Plan except for on-road emissions, which are calculated by the EPA): 

VOC .......................................................................................................... 0 .151 0 .123 0 .094 0 .081 

NOX .......................................................................................................... 0 .088 0 .082 0 .072 0 .065 

South Coast (Based on CARB data as shown in Maintenance Plan rounded 

to the nearest 10 tons): 

VOC .......................................................................................................... 500 460 420 410 

NOX .......................................................................................................... 490 430 340 280 

South Coast (Based on 2012 South Coast AQMP data rounded to the nearest 10 tons): 

VOC ................................................................................................................. 540 480 450 440 

NOX .................................................................................................................. 560 470 370 310 

Based on the revised calculations for 

on-road emissions at the Pechanga 

Reservation, emissions at the Pechanga 

Reservation are estimated to be several 

times higher than presented in the 

Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan and 

in the proposed rule but are predicted 

to decrease through the maintenance 

period due to significant reductions in 

vehicular emissions resulting from 

continued implementation of state and 

federal motor vehicle control programs. 

Moreover, our conclusion from the 

proposed rule that the emissions 

associated with the Pechanga 

Reservation are minimal in relation to 

regional ozone precursor emissions 

remains unchanged given that, even as 

revised, Pechanga Reservation 

emissions represent 0.03% or less of 

regional emissions of VOC and NOX for 

all of the years that were analyzed. 

SCAQMD Comment #6: The SCAQMD 

states that the EPA fails to explain its 

legal theory that would allow the Tribe 

to fail to identify specific contingency 

measures in its maintenance plan. 

Response to SCAQMD Comment #6: 

CAA section 175A(d) requires that 

maintenance plans contain such 

contingency provisions as the EPA 

deems necessary to assure that the State 

will promptly correct any violation of 

the standard which occurs after the 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. Such provisions shall 

include a requirement that the State will 

implement all measures with respect to 

the control of the air pollutant 

concerned which were contained in the 

SIP for the area before redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area. In this 

context, the reference to ‘‘State’’ and 

‘‘SIP’’ in CAA section 175A corresponds 

to ‘‘Tribe’’ and ‘‘TIP.’’ 

Generally, the EPA believes that, to 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

175A(d), contingency provisions of 

maintenance plans should identify the 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a specific time 

limit for action by the State.24 However, 

the CAA does not require that specific 

contingency measures be identified 

other than those measures that were part 

of the control strategy that a State or 

Tribe relied on to attain the standard but 

is not relying on for maintenance of the 

standard and is no longer retaining as an 

active measure in the SIP or TIP. No 

such measures exist for the Pechanga 

Reservation. 

Notwithstanding the absence of a 

statutory requirement for specific 

contingency measures, as noted above, 

the EPA generally deems it necessary for 

contingency provisions of maintenance 

plans to identify specific measures to 

assure that the State or Tribe will 

promptly correct any violation of the 

standard which occurs after the 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. Relevant considerations 

for the EPA in this regard include the 

probability of a future violation of the 

standard (based on how close the area 

is to violating the standard, emissions or 

ambient concentration trends, and the 

variability of ambient concentrations 

from year to year) and the reasonable 

foreseeability of specific sources or 

source categories as likely to be 

responsible for future violations if they 

occur. 

In this instance, the ambient 

concentrations (0.077 ppm based on 

2011–2013 data collected at the 

Temecula monitor) are below the 

applicable NAAQS (0.08 ppm), and the 

emissions trends in the South Coast 

show steep declines of both VOC and 

NOX between 2012 and 2025 (see table 

2 of the proposed rule), and thus there 

is a relatively low probably of a future 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18127 

25The Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan refers 

to ‘‘ . . . implementation of any additional 

necessary and appropriate measure(s). . . .’’ 

(emphasis added). In addition, the EPA is 

authorized under CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) 

to promulgate FIP provisions as are ‘‘necessary or 

appropriate’’ (emphasis added) to protect air quality 

in Indian country, if a tribe does not submit a TIP. 

See 40 CFR 49.11. 

26The Pechanga Reservation was expanded to 

include certain lands in Riverside County and San 

Diego County under Public Law 110–383, the 

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians Land 

Transfer Act of 2007. See 78 FR 46603 (August 1, 

2013). The public law that was ultimately passed 

by the 110th Congress and signed by the President 

on October 10, 2008 was originally introduced on 

July 22, 2004 as House Bill No. 4908 in the 108th 

Congress. On July 28, 2005, the bill was 

reintroduced in the 109th Congress as House Bill 

3507. The bill that later became law was 

reintroduced in the 110th Congress as House Bill 

2963 on July 10, 2007. We note that the Tribe began 

working with the Bureau of Land Management in 

the 1990’s to place these lands into trust. See 

Statement of Mark Macarro, Pechanga Band of 

Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians, Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2963, 

Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians Land 

Transfer Act, May 15, 2008. Lastly, we note that, 

Continued 

violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard at the Pechanga Reservation. 

Moreover, any future violation of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard at the 

Pechanga Reservation is unlikely to be 

caused by sources at the reservation 

given the predominant influence of 

upwind transport of ozone from upwind 

metropolitan areas in the South Coast. 

Therefore, the contingency provisions of 

the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan 

include annual review of the ozone data 

and, in the event of a monitored 

violation, a commitment to work with 

the EPA to identify, adopt, and 

implement any additional necessary and 

appropriate measure(s) needed to 

promptly correct the violation.25 Under 

the particular circumstances described 

above, the EPA has found that the 

contingency provisions of the Pechanga 

Ozone Maintenance Plan meet the 

requirements of section 175A(d), even 

though the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan identifies no specific 

contingency measures for adoption by 

the Tribe or the EPA. 

SCAQMD Comment #7: The SCAQMD 

asserts that the EPA’s proposal to create 

a separate attainment area for the 

Pechanga Reservation for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard is inconsistent 

with the EPA’s Tribal Designations 

Policy. More specifically, the SCAQMD 

states that the EPA must explain why it 

fails to take into account the fact that 

the Pechanga Reservation is not separate 

from the adjacent South Coast or San 

Diego areas by topographic or other 

geographic features whereas the policy 

cites the presence of topographic or 

other geographic barriers as a factor to 

consider where a Tribe submits a 

request for a separate attainment area 

adjacent to a nonattainment area. 

The SCAQMD notes the EPA’s 

decision to give ‘‘particular weight’’ to 

the ‘‘jurisdictional boundaries’’ factor in 

its tribal designation policy but asserts 

that the EPA fails to explain what that 

means, and to the extent that the EPA 

is referring to the fact that a small part 

of the Pechanga Reservation is located 

in San Diego County, this factor should 

not be determinative because two of the 

considerations cited by the EPA in 

evaluating the ‘‘jurisdictional 

boundaries’’ factor are not wellgrounded. First, the SCAQMD states 

that the Tribe acquired lands in San 

Diego County only recently and that 

historically the entire reservation has 

been included in the South Coast. 

Second, the SCAQMD acknowledges 

that the Tribe operates its own monitor 

but suggests that the statement of the 

Tribe’s interest in developing its own 

permitting program is not genuine 

because the redesignation request is 

devoid of any plans by the Tribe to 

establish an air permitting program or 

any other regulation. The SCAQMD 

further suggests that the proposed action 

essentially amounts to a determination 

that, given the particular weight for the 

jurisdictional boundaries factor, the 

EPA will grant a request for a separate 

area for any tribe that operates a 

monitor, even if it does not meet federal 

requirements. 

Response to SCAQMD Comment #7: 

We do not agree. First, the EPA has 

proposed action on two separate 

requests: (1) the Tribe’s June 23, 2009 

boundary change request to establish a 

separate ozone nonattainment area; and 

(2) the Tribe’s May 9, 2014 request to 

redesignate the Pechanga Reservation 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

second request of course presumes an 

affirmative response by the EPA to the 

first request. The EPA has chosen to 

take action on both requests in the same 

document, but different considerations 

and criteria apply to the different 

actions. For instance, some 

considerations that are germane to the 

evaluation of the Tribe’s 2009 boundary 

change request are not germane to the 

evaluation of the Tribe’s 2014 request 

for redesignation. Thus, it follows that 

some information from the 2009 request 

would not be repeated in the 2014 

redesignation request. For example, the 

existence of a tribal permitting program 

is not a requirement for redesignation, 

but the tribe’s interest in developing 

such a program prospectively is a 

consideration for the boundary change. 

Second, the EPA believes that a 

request from a tribe for a separate 

nonattainment or attainment area 

should be supported by data from a 

tribe’s own regulatory monitor or, at the 

very least, by data from a proximate 

regulatory monitor that is representative 

of air quality in the tribe’s Indian 

country area. In this case, the Pechanga 

operates its own regulatory monitor, and 

in addition, there is a proximate 

representative monitor operated by the 

SCAQMD at the Temecula monitoring 

site. The EPA did not rely on the Tribe’s 

ozone data for this action because the 

data was not complete over the 2011– 

2013 period, not because the monitor 

was non-regulatory. 

Third, the SCAQMD is correct in 

noting that the EPA, in evaluating the 

‘‘geography/topography’’ factor as part 

of our evaluation of the Tribe’s 

boundary change request, concluded 

that there are no significant topographic 

barriers to air flow in the area. However, 

our Tribal Designations Policy calls for 

a multi-factor evaluation of requests for 

designation of separate tribal air quality 

planning areas or requests for a 

boundary change to establish such 

areas. The ‘‘geography/topography’’ 

factor is but one of the various factors 

we take into account. In this instance, 

we concluded that, considering the 

three factors of air quality data, 

meteorology, and topography, the EPA 

could reasonably include the Pechanga 

Reservation in either the South Coast air 

quality planning area to the north, or the 

San Diego County air quality planning 

area to the south, or alternatively, the 

EPA could establish a separate 

nonattainment area for the Pechanga 

Reservation as it did for the 2008 ozone 

standard, and more recently, for the 

2012 annual PM2.5 standard. See page 

441 of our proposed rule. 

Further, taking into account the 

minimal emissions associated with 

activities on the Pechanga Reservation 

and the corresponding minimal 

contribution from Pechanga-related 

emissions sources to regional ozone 

levels, we concluded that it was 

appropriate, and consistent with the 

principles of the Tribal Designations 

Policy, to give particular weight to the 

jurisdictional boundaries factor. Under 

this factor, we consider what the 

existing jurisdictional boundaries are for 

the purposes of providing a clearly 

defined legal boundary of the area 

pertaining to the designation or 

boundary change request and carrying 

out air quality planning and 

enforcement functions. When the 

Pechanga Tribe acquired parcels in San 

Diego County is not germane.26 What is 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

under Public Law 110–383, the lands transferred to 

the reservation in 2008 may be used only as open 

space and for the protection, preservation, and 

maintenance of the archaeological, cultural, and 

wildlife resources thereon. 

27 In addition, as noted previously, we recently 

designated the Pechanga Reservation as a separate 

air quality planning area for the 2012 annual fine 

particle (PM2.5) standard. See 80 FR 2206, at 2225 

(January 15, 2015). As such, we will also be aligning 

the ozone air quality planning area with the 2012 

annual PM2.5 air quality planning area. 

germane is the fact that the Pechanga 

Reservation now lies within two 

different counties (Riverside and San 

Diego Counties) and thus straddles two 

different ozone areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard (South Coast and San 

Diego County) and that the Pechanga 

Reservation is a separate air quality 

planning area for the 2008 ozone 

standard. By establishing a separate area 

for the Pechanga Reservation for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA 

will be aligning the air quality planning 

areas the two ozone standards thereby 

simplifying air quality planning and 

permitting functions at the 

reservation.27

As noted above, in this instance, we 

are giving ‘‘particular weight’’ to the 

jurisdictional boundaries factor. This 

means that the jurisdictional factor 

outweighs other factors that might 

otherwise counsel against establishment 

of a separate air quality planning area. 

In this case, for example, the relevant 

Indian country area is significantly 

impacted by upwind sources, a fact that 

may otherwise support inclusion of the 

Indian country area in a larger area. 

However, we have decided that, in this 

instance, such considerations are 

outweighed by the jurisdictional 

boundaries factor and thus proposed to 

grant the request by the Tribe for a 

separate area. Our giving of particular 

weight to the jurisdictional boundaries 

factor is appropriate given the minimal 

emissions associated with activities on 

the Pechanga Reservation, the 

corresponding minimal contribution 

from Pechanga-related emissions 

sources to regional ozone levels, and the 

location of the reservation on the border 

of two separate larger areas, is 

consistent with Tribal Designations 

Policy. See page 7 of the Tribal 

Designations Policy for examples of 

circumstances in which the 

jurisdictional boundaries factor may 

bear the most weight in evaluating 

requests for a separate area. 

SCAQMD Comment #8: The SCAQMD 

contends that the EPA’s action to 

establish the Pechanga Reservation as a 

separate air quality planning area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard is 

inconsistent with the principles that 

EPA articulated in a previous 

rulemaking in which the Agency 

reclassified Indian country (except for 

the Morongo Reservation and Pechanga 

Reservation) within the South Coast 

consistent with the State’s request for 

reclassification of lands under State 

jurisdiction within the South Coast from 

‘‘Severe-17’’ to ‘‘Extreme.’’ 

The previous rulemaking to which the 

SCAQMD refers, ‘‘Designation of Areas 

for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

California; San Joaquin Valley, South 

Coast Air Basin, Coachella Valley, and 

Sacramento Metro Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas; Reclassification,’’ 

was proposed at 74 FR 43654 (August 

27, 2009) and finalized (except for the 

Morongo Reservation and Pechanga 

Reservation) at 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 

2010). As the SCAQMD notes, in the 

previous rulemaking, the EPA based its 

decision to reclassify areas of Indian 

country (other than the Morongo 

Reservation and Pechanga Reservation, 

for which final action was deferred) on 

such considerations as: (1) Boundaries 

of nonattainment areas are drawn to 

encompass both areas of direct sources 

of the pollution problem as well as 

nearby areas in the same airshed; (2) 

Emissions changes in lower-classified 

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 area with a higher 

ozone classification; and (3) Uniformity 

of classification throughout a 

nonattainment area is thus a guiding 

principle and premise when an area is 

being reclassified. 

The SCAQMD contends that the EPA 

has not explained why the rationale 

articulated by the EPA in the above 

reclassification rulemaking with respect 

to the areas of Indian country that were 

reclassified to ‘‘Extreme’’ does not 

continue to apply in evaluating the 

request by the Pechanga to establish a 

separate air quality planning area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Response to SCAQMD Comment #8: 

Since the EPA’s 2010 final action to 

grant the State of California’s request to 

reclassify the portion of the South Coast 

subject to State jurisdiction, and to 

reclassify Indian country (other than the 

Morongo and Pechanga Reservations) in 

the South Coast consistent with the 

State’s request, the EPA has issued its 

Tribal Designations Policy and applied 

the principles of the policy in 

designating the Pechanga Reservation as 

a separate ozone nonattainment area for 

the 2008 ozone standard. In so doing, 

the EPA remains cognizant of the 

considerations set forth in that earlier 

rulemaking that caution against undue 

subdivision of larger air quality 

planning areas into smaller areas with 

different classifications. However, the 

EPA is also cognizant of the distinct 

jurisdictional principles associated with 

Indian reservations and the general 

absence of state regulatory jurisdiction 

in such areas. The Tribal Designation 

Policy was issued in part to apply these 

principles and in recognition of tribal 

sovereignty in the designations context. 

More specifically, we continue to 

believe that boundaries of 

nonattainment areas should generally 

encompass both areas of direct sources 

of the pollution problem as well as 

nearby areas in the same airshed and 

continue to consider uniformity of 

classification as a guiding principle to 

avoid the potential hindrance by lowerclassified areas to regional planning 

efforts to attain the standard. The Tribal 

Designation Policy retains these 

considerations in evaluating requests by 

tribes for separate areas as part of a 

multi-factor analysis. In this instance, 

we have concluded that establishment 

of the Pechanga Reservation as a 

separate area would not hinder regional 

efforts to attain or maintain the ozone 

NAAQS, and the benefit of retaining the 

Pechanga Reservation in two separate 

airsheds (South Coast and San Diego) is 

outweighed by other considerations, 

namely, the jurisdictional boundaries 

factor. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons set forth in the 

proposed rule and in response to 

comments above, the EPA is taking final 

action to establish the Pechanga 

Reservation as a separate air quality 

planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, to approve the Tribe’s 

submittal of the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan, and to approve the 

Tribe’s request to redesignate the newlydesignated Pechanga Reservation air 

quality planning area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

More specifically, first, pursuant to 

CAA section 107(d)(3), the EPA is taking 

final action to revise the boundaries of 

the South Coast and San Diego County 

air quality planning areas for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard to designate the 

Pechanga Reservation as a separate 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. We are doing so based 

on our conclusion that factors such as 

air quality data, meteorology, and 

topography do not definitively support 

inclusion of the reservation in either the 

South Coast or the San Diego County air 

quality planning areas, that emissions 

sources at the Pechanga Reservation 

contribute minimally to regional ozone 

concentrations, and that the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18129 

28 In our proposed rule at 80 FR 438, we indicated 

that if we finalize our proposed action to revise the 

boundaries of the South Coast and San Diego air 

quality planning areas to designate the Pechanga 

Reservation as a separate nonattainment area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA would 

withdraw our proposed action to reclassify the 

Pechanga Reservation to ‘‘Extreme’’ for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard (74 FR 43654, August 27, 

2009). (In 2010, we deferred final reclassification 

with respect to the Pechanga Reservation (and the 

Morongo Reservation) when we took final action to 

reclassify the South Coast for the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone standard (75 FR 24409, May 5, 2010).) Given 

today’s final action and consistent with our 

statement from the proposed rule, EPA is 

withdrawing our 2009 proposed reclassification 

action to the extent it relates to the Pechanga 

Reservation in the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

jurisdictional boundaries factor should 

be given particular weight under these 

circumstances. As a result of our final 

action, the Pechanga Reservation air 

quality planning area for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard has the same 

boundaries as the Pechanga Reservation 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

standard and the 2012 annual PM2.5

standard.28

Second, pursuant to CAA section 

110(k), the EPA is taking final action to 

approve the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan, submitted by the 

Tribe on November 4, 2014, as the 

Tribe’s TIP for maintaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard within the 

Pechanga Reservation for ten years 

beyond redesignation, because it meets 

the requirements for maintenance plans 

under CAA section 175A. 

Lastly, pursuant to CAA section 

107(d)(3), and based in part on our 

approval of the Pechanga Ozone 

Maintenance Plan, the EPA is taking 

final action to grant a request from the 

Tribe to redesignate the newlyestablished Pechanga Reservation ozone 

air quality planning area to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

because the request meets the statutory 

requirements for redesignation in CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

As a result of our final action, certain 

CAA requirements that had applied to 

the Pechanga Reservation by virtue of its 

inclusion in the South Coast ‘‘Extreme’’ 

ozone nonattainment area for the 

revoked 1-hour ozone standard no 

longer apply, nor do the requirements 

that had applied to the reservation by 

virtue of its designation as ‘‘Severe-17’’ 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

requirements that no longer apply 

include, among others, the NNSR major 

source threshold of 10 tpy for ozone 

precursor emissions in ‘‘Extreme’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas. New or modified 

stationary sources proposed at the 

Pechanga Reservation remain subject to 

major source nonattainment NNSR, 

however, by virtue of the reservation’s 

classification as a ‘‘Moderate’’ ozone 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

standard. The NNSR major source 

threshold in ‘‘Moderate’’ ozone 

nonattainment areas is 100 tpy. 

The EPA finds that there is good 

cause for approval of this TIP and 

redesignation to attainment to become 

effective immediately upon publication 

because a delayed effective date is 

unnecessary due to the nature of a 

redesignation to attainment which 

relieves the area from certain CAA 

requirements that would otherwise 

apply to it. The immediate effective date 

for this redesignation is authorized 

under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which 

provides that rulemaking actions may 

become effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction’’ and section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

Indian reservation air quality planning 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by the TIP and applicable 

federal rules. Redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of less 

stringent requirements contained in the 

CAA for areas that have been 

redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 

under circumstances where a tribe is 

determined as eligible for TAS for the 

purposes of section 110 with respect to 

a given TIP, the Administrator is 

required to approve a TIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing TIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve tribal choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these 

actions merely approve a tribal plan and 

redesignation request as meeting federal 

requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by tribal law. For these 

reasons, these actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have federalism implications 

as specified in Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the final actions have 

‘‘tribal implications’’ as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), with respect to the 

Pechanga Tribe. However, the actions 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs or preempt tribal law. 

Moreover, these actions respond 

directly to specific requests submitted 

by the affected tribe and follow from 

extensive coordination and consultation 

between representatives of the Pechanga 

Tribe and the EPA about these and other 

related matters. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

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

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 2, 2015. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, National parks, Ozone, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: March 20, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 49—INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR 

QUALITY PLANNING AND 

MANAGEMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 49 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart L—Implementation Plans for 

Tribes—Region IX 

■ 2. Subpart L of part 49 is amended by 

adding an undesignated center heading 

and § 49.5514 to read as follows: 

Implementation Plan for the Pechanga 

Band of Luisen ̃ o Mission Indians of the 

Pechanga Reservation 

§ 49.5514 EPA-approved Tribal rules and 

plans. 

(a) Purpose and scope. This section 

contains the approved implementation 

plan for the Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃ o 

Mission Indians of the Pechanga 

Reservation dated May 2014. The plan 

consists of a redesignation request, a 

demonstration of maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard, and related 

commitments to continue monitoring 

and to implement contingency 

provisions in the event of a monitored 

violation of the standard. 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) EPA-approved nonregulatory 

provisions and quasi-regulatory 

measures. 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES FOR THE PECHANGA BAND OF

LUISEN ̃O MISSION INDIANS OF THE PECHANGA RESERVATION

Name of nonregulatory or quasi-regulatory TIP 

provision Tribal submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Pechanga Band of Luisen ̃o 

Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation Nonattainment Area (May 2014).

November 4, 2014 ..... [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION 

April 3, 2015.

Tribal redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations 

■ 5. Section 81.305 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘California—1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)’’ by: 

■ a. Revising the entry under ‘‘Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA’’; 

■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘Pechanga 

Reservation’’ following the entry ‘‘San 

Bernardino County (part)’’ under the 

entry ‘‘Los Angeles-South Coast Air 

Basin, CA’’; 

■ c. Revising the entry under ‘‘San 

Diego, CA’’; and 

■ d. Adding Footnote (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

CALIFORNIA—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

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

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18131 

CALIFORNIA—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

That portion of Los Angeles County which 

lies south and west of a line described as 

follows: Beginning at the Los AngelesSan Bernardino County boundary and 

running west along the Township line 

common to Township 3 North and Township 2 North, San Bernardino Base and 

Meridian; then north along the range line 

common to Range 8 West and Range 9 

West; then west along the Township line 

common to Township 4 North and Township 3 North; then north along the range 

line common to Range 12 West and 

Range 13 West to the southeast corner 

of Section 12, Township 5 North and 

Range 13 West; then west along the 

south boundaries of Sections 12, 11, 10, 

9, 8, and 7, Township 5 North and Range 

13 West to the boundary of the Angeles 

National Forest which is collinear with the 

range line common to Range 13 West 

and Range 14 West; then north and west 

along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the 

Township line common to Township 7 

North and Township 6 North (point is at 

the northwest corner of Section 4 in 

Township 6 North and Range 14 West); 

then west along the Township line common to Township 7 North and Township 

6 North; then north along the range line 

common to Range 15 West and Range 

16 West to the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 7 North and Range 16 

West; then along the south boundaries of 

Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 

Township 7 North and Range 16 West; 

then north along the range line common 

to Range 16 West and Range 17 West to 

the north boundary of the Angeles National Forest (collinear with the Township 

line common to Township 8 North and 

Township 7 North); then west and north 

along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the 

south boundary of the Rancho La Liebre 

Land Grant; then west and north along 

this land grant boundary to the Los Angeles-Kern County boundary.

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

Riverside County (part) ........................................ ........................... Nonattainment .................... (2) Subpart 2/Extreme. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

That portion of Riverside County which lies 

to the west of a line described as follows: 

Beginning at the Riverside-San Diego 

County boundary and running north along 

the range line common to Range 4 East 

and Range 3 East, San Bernardino Base 

and Meridian; then east along the Township line common to Township 8 South 

and Township 7 South; then north along 

the range line common to Range 5 East 

and Range 4 East; then west along the 

Township line common to Township 6 

South and Township 7 South to the 

southwest corner of Section 34, Township 

6 South, Range 4 East; then north along 

the west boundaries of Sections 34, 27, 

22, 15, 10, and 3, Township 6 South, 

Range 4 East; then west along the Township line common to Township 5 South 

and Township 6 South; then north along 

the range line common to Range 4 East 

and Range 3 East; then west along the 

south boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, and 18, Township 5 South, Range 

3 East; then north along the range line 

common to Range 2 East and Range 3 

East; to the Riverside-San Bernardino 

County line.

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.

Pechanga Reservation c .............................................. April 3, 2015 ..... Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

San Diego, CA 

San Diego County (part)f

.

That portion of San Diego County that excludes the areas listed below: La Posta 

Areas #1 and #2,b Cuyapaipe Area,b

Manzanita Area,b Campo Areas #1 and 

#2b.

July 5, 2013 ...... Attainment. 

La Posta Areas #1 and #2 b ................................ ........................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Cuyapaipe Area b ................................................. ........................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Manzanita Area b ................................................. ........................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Campo Areas #1 and #2 b .......................................... ........................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

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

bThe boundaries for these designated areas are based on coordinates of latitude and longitude derived from EPA Region 9’s GIS database 

and are illustrated in a map entitled ‘‘Eastern San Diego County Attainment Areas for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ dated March 9, 2004, including an attached set of coordinates. The map and attached set of coordinates are available at EPA’s Region 9 Air Division office. The designated 

areas roughly approximate the boundaries of the reservations for these tribes, but their inclusion in this table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not intended to be a federal determination of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Also, the specific listing of these tribes 

in this table does not confer, deny, or withdraw federal recognition of any of the tribes so listed nor any of the tribes not listed. cThe use of reservation boundaries for this designation is for purposes of CAA planning only and is not intended to be a federal determination 

of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Nor does the specific listing of the Tribes in this table confer, deny, or withdraw federal recognition of 

any of the Tribes listed or not listed. dExcludes Morongo Band of Mission Indians’ Indian country in Riverside County. 

* * * * * * * 

f Excludes the Pechanga Reservation. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 64 / Friday, April 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18133 

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

2 This date is June 4, 2010. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–07534 Filed 4–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0159; FRL–9925–60– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; 

2014 Iowa State Implementation Plan; 

Permit Modifications; Muscatine, Iowa 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

the State of Iowa to include modified 

permits for Muscatine County, Iowa. 

The SIP revision addresses 

modifications to construction permits 

that were included in the 2006 24-hour 

particulate matter less than 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) control 

strategy proposed on August 11, 2014, 

and published as a final rule in the 

Federal Register on December 1, 2014, 

with the effective date of December 31, 

2014. The state’s submission of 

modified permits includes a revised air 

dispersion modeling analysis that 

demonstrated continued attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

action will also make an administrative 

correction to permit numbers. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective June 2, 2015, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by May 4, 2015. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0159 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Heather 

Hamilton, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2015– 

0159. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding 

legal holidays. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Hamilton, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7039, or by email at 

Hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve SIP revisions to replace specific 

EPA SIP-approved construction permits 

with modified permits in Muscatine 

County, Iowa. The modified permits are 

associated with PM2.5 emission points at 

Union Tank Car (UTLX) and Muscatine 

Power and Water (MPW). Prior versions 

of these permits were included in the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS control 

strategy proposed in the Federal 

Register on August 11, 2014, (79 FR 

71027) and published as a final rule on 

December 1, 2014, (79 FR 71025) with 

an effective date of December 31, 2014. 

Prior to publication of the final action, 

modifications to permits submitted with 

the control strategy were pending 

(under review by the state and 

undergoing public comment) for MPW 

and UTLX. 

Permits for UTLX were modified to 

reflect current operating conditions, 

stack configurations, and revised PM2.5

emission limits. The permit conditions 

pertaining to compliance 

demonstrations and operating condition 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting were included in each 

modified permit. The Iowa Department 

of Natural Resources (IDNR) initiated 

the public comment period that ended 

on August 28, 2014, for the UTLX 

modified permits. No comments were 

received. 

Permits for MPW were modified to 

include updated PM2.5 emission 

limitations associated with the rail 

unloading system. The permit 

conditions pertaining to compliance 

demonstrations and operating condition 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting were included in each 

modified permit. IDNR initiated the 

public comment period that ended on 

September 4, 2014, for the MPW 

modified permits. No comments were 

received. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES