Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following 

proposed rule on March 20, 2015, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the 

Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet 

version of the proposed rule, it is not the official version of the proposed rule for purposes 

of public comment. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, 

which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys website 

(http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0869 

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

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 Luiseño 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 Luiseño 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2 

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 [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR2014-0869 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3 

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 Coast1 and San Diego County air quality 

planning areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone2 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS or “standard”) to designate the Pechanga 

Reservation3 as a separate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

 

1 The 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.” 

3 The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(Pechanga Tribe or “Tribe”) is a federally-recognized tribe whose reservation 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4 

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 

 

(“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 eight-hour 

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. 

6 We 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5 

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 

newly-established 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 

 

air quality planning area for the 2012 annual fine particle (PM2.5) standard. 

See 80 FR 2206, at 2225 (January 15, 2015). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6 

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 D.C. 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 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7 

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 

 

7 The 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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10 

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 

 

8 On 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12 

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. 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13 

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, quality-assured, 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 2014a 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 

a All 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. 

b The 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained where the design value is 

 

9 Please see the docket item titled, “Maximum Daily 8-hour Ozone 

Concentrations for Selected Monitors 2012-2014” for the updated data 

presentation. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14 

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 

 

10 The 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16 

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-by-case 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17 

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 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18 

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 

 

11 See EPA Region IX, Pechanga Ozone Data Assessment, August 4, 2011. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19 

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 longterm 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, qualityassured 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20 

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 

 

12 See 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. 

13 See 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21 

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 

 

14 See figure 5-13 of the SCAQMD’s 2012 Final Air Quality Management Plan 

(February 2013). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22 

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 country15 (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 sections 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 sections 49.166 through 49.173. The 

 

15 “Indian country” as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to: “(a) all land 

within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, 

including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent 

Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the 

original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 

without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian 

titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running 

through the same.” 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23 

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 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24 

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 today’s action, 

new or modified sources on the Pechanga Reservation are already 

subject to the requirements of the EPA’s Indian country NSR 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26 

considerations, the EPA takes into account “[t]ypical control 

technology or other emission reduction measures used by similar 

sources in surrounding areas.” 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27 

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. 

 

16 The 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28 

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 

 

17 Certain 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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29 

technology review and air quality impacts analysis, and thus, we 

can reasonably rely on such review to ensure that emission 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30 

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

 

18 These 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31 

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 

 

19 When 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.) 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32 

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). 

 

20 See “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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33 

As to the SCAQMD’s contention that, while some reliance on 

upwind out-of-area 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34 

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 nonresident motor vehicle trips generated by the Pechanga Resort 

 

21 The 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35 

and Casino. Therefore, for this final rule, we re-calculated 

vehicle emissions using EMFAC2011 emissions factors for year 

2012 based on the following assumptions: 17,100 average daily 

vehicle trips associated with non-residents and 1,870 daily 

vehicle trips associated with residents;22 0.5 miles per trip on 

the reservation for non-resident trips and 2.0 miles per trip on 

the reservation for trips by reservation residents; and a nonresident 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 

 

22 The 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

36 

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 

 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

37 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

38 

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 

 

24 See 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

39 

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 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

40 

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 

 

25 The 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

41 

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 

well-grounded. 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

42 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

43 

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” 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

44 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

45 

When the Pechanga Tribe acquired parcels in San Diego County is 

not germane.26 What is 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 

 

26 The Pechanga Reservation was expanded to include certain lands in 

Riverside County and San Diego County under Public Law 110-383, the Pechanga 

Band of Luiseño 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 Luiseño Mission Indians, 

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

Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians Land Transfer Act, May 15, 2008. 

Lastly, we note that, 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, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

46 

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 

 

we will also be aligning the ozone air quality planning area with the 2012 

annual PM2.5 air quality planning area. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

47 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

48 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

49 

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 lower-classified areas to regional planning efforts 

to attain the standard. The Tribal Designation Policy retains 

these considerations in evaluating requests by tribes for 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

50 

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 newly-designated 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

51 

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 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, 

 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

52 

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 newly-established 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

53 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

54 

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: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

55 

· 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); 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

56 

· 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, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

57 

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 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 [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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)). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

58 

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. 

March 20, 2015. /s/ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, 

Region IX. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

59 

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 LUISEÑO 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 Luiseño 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] 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

60 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory 

measures. 

EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures for the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the 

Pechanga Reservation 

Name of 

nonregulatory 

or quasiregulatory TIP 

provision 

Tribal 

submittal date 

EPA approval 

date Explanation 

Ozone 

Redesignation 

Request and 

Maintenance 

Plan for 

Pechanga Band 

of Luiseño 

Mission 

Indians of the 

Pechanga 

Reservation 

Nonattainment 

Area (May 

2014) 

November 4, 

2014 

[INSERT

FEDERAL 

REGISTER 

CITATION] 

[INSERT DATE 

OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

61 

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 

5. In § 81.305 amend the table titled “California—1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)” by 

a. Revising the entries for “Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, 

CA”; 

b. Adding a new entry for “Pechanga Reservation” (after San 

Bernardino County (part)); 

c. Revising the entries for “San Diego, CA”; and 

d. Adding Footnote (f) after Footnote (e). 

The revisions and additions read as follows: 

§81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

California–1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary) 

Designated Area 

Designationa Classification 

Date1 Type Date1 Type 

 * * * * * * * 

Los Angeles—South Coast Air 

Basin, CA:d,f

.................. Nonattainment (2) Subpart 2 / 

Extreme. 

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

Extreme. 

That portion of Los 

Angeles County which lies 

south and west of a line 

described as follows: 

Beginning at the Los 

Angeles-San Bernardino 

County boundary and 

 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

62 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

63 

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. 

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 

 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

64 

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 Reservationc [INSE

RT 

DATE 

OF 

PUBLI

Attainment 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

65 

CATIO

N IN 

THE 

FEDER

AL 

REGIS

TER] 

 * * * * * * * 

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 #2b .................. Unclassifiabl

e/Attainment 

 

 Cuyapaipe Areab .................. Unclassifiabl

e/Attainment 

 

 Manzanita Areab .................. Unclassifiabl

e/Attainment 

 

 Campo Areas #1 and #2b .................. Unclassifiabl

e/Attainment 

 

 * * * * * * * 

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

otherwise specified. 

b The boundaries for these designated areas are based on coordinates of 

latitude and longitude derived from EPA Region 9’s GIS database and are 

illustrated in a map entitled “Eastern San Diego County Attainment Areas for 

the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,” dated March 9, 2004, including an attached set of 

coordinates. The map and attached set of coordinates are available at EPA’s 

Region 9 Air Division office. The designated areas roughly approximate the 

boundaries of the reservations for these tribes, but their inclusion in this 

table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not intended to be a 

federal determination of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Also, the 

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

withdraw federal recognition of any of the tribes so listed nor any of the 

tribes not listed. 

c The use of reservation boundaries for this designation is for purposes of 

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

exact boundaries of the reservations. Nor does the specific listing of the 

Tribes in this table confer, deny, or withdraw federal recognition of any of 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9 on March 20, 2015. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

66 

the Tribes listed or not listed. 

d Excludes Morongo Band of Mission Indians’ Indian country in Riverside 

County. 

 * * * * * * * 

f Excludes the Pechanga Reservation. 

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

2 This date is June 4, 2010. 

* * * * *