[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18120-18133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07534]



[[Page 18120]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to revise the boundaries of the Southern California air quality 
planning areas to designate the reservation of the Pechanga Band of 
Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California 
as a separate air quality planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The EPA is also taking final 
action to approve the Tribe's tribal implementation plan (``TIP'') for 
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard within the Pechanga 
Reservation through 2025 because it meets the Clean Air Act's and the 
EPA's requirements for maintenance plans. Lastly, based in part on the 
approval of the maintenance plan, the EPA is granting a request from 
the Tribe to redesignate the Pechanga Reservation nonattainment area to 
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard because the area meets 
the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0869 
for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket 
are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available 
only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some 
may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential 
Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Israels, Grants and Program 
Integration Office (AIR-8), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, (415) 947-4102, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e38a909182868f90cd88868da3869382cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f0eaebf8fcf5eab7f2fcf7d9fce9f8b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Comments and Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On January 6, 2015 (80 FR 436), under section 107(d)(3) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA proposed to revise the 
boundaries of the South Coast \1\ and San Diego County air quality 
planning areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone \2\ national ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') to designate the Pechanga 
Reservation \3\ as a separate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard.\4\ We proposed to do so based on our conclusion that 
factors such as air quality data, meteorology, and topography do not 
definitively support inclusion of the reservation in either the South 
Coast or the San Diego County air quality planning areas, that 
emissions sources at the Pechanga Reservation contribute minimally to 
regional ozone concentrations, and that the jurisdictional boundaries 
factor should be given particular weight under these circumstances.\5\ 
Once this action is effective, the Pechanga air quality planning area 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will have the same boundaries as the 
Pechanga nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard and the 2012 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians of the 
Pechanga Reservation (Pechanga Tribe or ``Tribe'') is a federally-
recognized tribe whose reservation (``Pechanga Reservation'' or 
``reservation'') straddles the boundary between western Riverside 
County and northern San Diego County where Temecula Valley meets the 
complex topography that forms the boundary between these two 
counties.
    \4\ In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone standard to 0.08 ppm, 8-
hour average (``1997 8-hour ozone standard''), and then, in 2008, 
lowered the 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 air quality planning area for the 
2012 annual fine particle (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) standard. See 80 FR 
2206, at 2225 (January 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 year of this maintenance plan 
because, at the time the maintenance plan was developed, the EPA had 
revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for transportation conformity 
purposes, effective July 20, 2013. See 77 FR 30160 (May 21, 2012). 
However, on December 23, 2014, the DC Circuit held that the EPA lacked 
authority for such a partial revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard and effectively reinstituted transportation conformity 
requirements for areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standard or redesignated to attainment with an approved CAA 
section 175A maintenance plan. The Court did not question the EPA's 
authority to revoke a standard in total. See Natural Resources Defense 
Council v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 12-1321, December 23, 2014). Since the 
Court's decision, the EPA has

[[Page 18121]]

published a final rule that, among other things, revokes the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS for all purposes, including transportation conformity, effective 
April 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). After that date, 
transportation conformity will no longer be required for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. The Pechanga Reservation air quality planning area 
will remain designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard, and 
transportation conformity continues to apply for that NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>.
    In our proposed rule, we also explained that, in concluding that it 
is appropriate to propose approval of the Tribe's request for boundary 
changes and designation to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard, the EPA relies heavily on the fact that this is a request 
from a federally-recognized tribal government. The Pechanga Tribe has 
been determined previously to qualify for treatment in the same manner 
as a state (also referred to as ``TAS'') for purposes of CAA section 
107(d) and sections 110 and 175A and the submitted maintenance plan, 
and the lands under consideration here are subject to the EPA's Tribal 
Designation Policy. The EPA finds that the Tribe's request for a 
separate area is consistent with the principles set forth in that 
policy.
    The EPA also explained in the proposed rule that our proposed 
action relies on the facts that there are valid monitoring data showing 
that current air quality at the Pechanga Reservation meets the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard and that the emissions from sources on the Pechanga 
Reservation are minimal and do not contribute in any meaningful way to 
ambient concentrations in any nearby ozone nonattainment area. Finally, 
we noted that the action to establish a separate air quality planning 
area would simplify implementation of the ozone standards by 
eliminating the division of the reservation into two different planning 
areas for the same criteria pollutant standard, the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. This separate treatment of the Pechanga Reservation is 
consistent with the EPA's prior final actions to reclassify the South 
Coast ozone nonattainment area in 2010, to establish a separate air 
quality planning area for the 2008 ozone standard in 2012, and to 
establish a separate air quality planning area for the 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in 2015. In summary, we noted in our proposed 
rule that the proposed changes in the boundaries and the status of this 
area are supported by several unique factors that are unlikely to be 
present in other nonattainment areas.
    Please see our proposed rule and related technical support document 
(TSD) for additional background information about the Pechanga 
Reservation, the regulatory context, the Tribe's request for a boundary 
change, and the Tribe's redesignation request, as well as a more 
detailed explanation of our rationale for the proposed actions.

II. Comments and Responses

    Our proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment period. During this 
period, we received comments from the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD or ``District'').\8\ We have summarized the 
comments, and provide responses in the paragraphs that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    SCAQMD Comment #1: The SCAQMD states that it knows of no precedent 
for the EPA to determine the attainment status for an entire separate 
nonattainment area based on monitors located outside that area, at 
least where the data are being used to support redesignation from 
nonattainment to attainment. In addition to the lack of precedent, the 
SCAQMD also cites statements by the EPA to the effect that monitoring 
requirements apply ``in the area;'' the EPA's definition of ``design 
value,'' which refers to the highest site ``in any attainment area or 
nonattainment area;'' and the decision by the EPA not to designate the 
Pechanga Reservation as a separate ``attainment'' area for the 2008 
ozone standard based on the lack of a regulatory monitor at the 
reservation, as support for the SCAQMD's conclusion that EPA's 
regulations do not authorize monitoring data collected outside a given 
nonattainment area to be used as the basis for determining whether a 
nonattainment area is attaining the NAAQS for the purposes of 
redesignation. Lastly, the SCAQMD contends that the EPA must justify 
its approach and must demonstrate why it will not lead to further 
attempts by areas within the South Coast to establish separate ozone 
planning areas to obtain the benefits of a lower ozone classification 
or a redesignation to attainment.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #1: As described at pages 442 and 443 of 
our proposed rule, we proposed a finding of attainment based on (1) 
ozone data collected at a monitor (the ``Temecula'' monitor) located 
approximately 10 miles north of the Pechanga Reservation and (2) a 
comparison of Temecula data with available data from the Pechanga ozone 
monitor. The Temecula data establishes an ozone design value below the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the Pechanga data, which includes two 
complete years (2012 and 2013) of regulatory data, provides the basis 
for comparison with corresponding Temecula data and thereby establishes 
representativeness.
    Thus, we are not relying solely on the out-of-area data in that we 
determined that the Temecula data was representative of ozone 
conditions on the Pechanga Reservation based in part on quality-assured 
and certified ambient ozone data collected at the regulatory monitor 
operated on the Pechanga Reservation. Data collected from the Pechanga 
monitor includes two complete years (2012 and 2013) with which to 
compare data from the Temecula data, and as shown in table 1 of our 
proposed rule (80 FR at 443), the fourth highest 8-hour ozone 
concentrations track very closely at the two sites during those two 
years, which is expected considering that ozone pollution is regional 
in nature, the two monitors are only 10 miles apart, and no significant 
topographic barriers lie between the two monitoring sites.

[[Page 18122]]

    Also, since publication of the proposed rule, additional 
preliminary data for year 2014 has become available from both the 
Temecula and Pechanga monitors. Table 1 below presents the data for 
2012 and 2013 previously presented in the proposed rule and adds 
preliminary data for 2014. While available preliminary 2014 data 
suggests that higher ozone concentrations were measured at the Pechanga 
monitor than at the Temecula monitor, the comparison of data between 
the two sites for 2014 is constrained by the fact that available 
preliminary 2014 data for Temecula only runs through the end of 
September 2014 and that data from August 29th-September 17th, which is 
during the peak ozone season, is missing because of a data logger 
problem, whereas the 2014 data from the Pechanga monitor reflects all 
four quarters. Despite its limitations, the available preliminary data 
for 2014 continues to be consistent with our proposed determination of 
attainment (which is based on complete, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Please see the docket item titled, ``Maximum Daily 8-hour 
Ozone Concentrations for Selected Monitors 2012-2014'' for the 
updated data presentation.

      Table 1--Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations at Temecula and Pechanga Monitors, 2012-2014, ppm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     2012-2014
               Monitor (site code)                     2012            2013          2014 \a\      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 less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. See 40
  CFR part 50, appendix I. Given the rounding conventions, however, attainment is achieved where design values
  are 0.084 ppm or less. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, section 2.3. The preliminary design values in this
  table are well below the relevant ozone NAAQS.
Source: AQS Data Summary Report, dated May 16, 2014; AQS Data Summary Report, dated February 25, 2015.

    Our decision to rely on the Temecula data to determine that the 
Pechanga Reservation has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is not 
inconsistent with the EPA's decision not to grant Pechanga's request 
for designation as a separate attainment area for the 2008 ozone 
standard. The SCAQMD is correct that, in our final rule designating 
areas for the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012), we 
decided not to designate the Pechanga Reservation as a separate 
attainment area on the grounds that the Pechanga Tribe did not operate 
a regulatory monitor that showed that the area in fact was attaining 
the 2008 ozone standard.\10\ Instead, we designated the Pechanga 
Reservation as a separate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 
standard, and we did so based on ozone data from a proximate, state 
regulatory monitor (at Lake Elsinore). At the time of the designation 
for the 2008 ozone standard, the SCAQMD's Temecula monitor, which began 
monitoring ozone in Fall of 2010, only had one year of complete ozone 
data, and the SCAQMD's Lake Elsinore monitoring site was the nearest 
proximate regulatory ozone monitor with complete data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA has considered the Pechanga monitor as a regulatory monitor 
since May 2010, but we invalidated the regulatory data collected prior 
to the correction of an equipment problem discovered in 2011 (and 
discussed below in Response to SCAQMD Comment #2), and thus the data 
from the Pechanga monitor were unavailable for use for the purposes of 
designating areas for the 2008 ozone standard. Regulatory monitors are 
those for which the monitoring objective is comparison with the NAAQS 
and that have adequately achieved the quality assurance and data 
requirements for regulatory decision making. As noted in our proposed 
rule (at 80 FR at 477), the Pechanga Tribe has committed in its 
maintenance plan to continue operating an ambient ozone monitor at the 
reservation, quality assuring the resulting monitoring data, and 
entering all data in AQS in accordance with federal requirements and 
guidelines to verify continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.
    Lastly, as to the potential for other areas within the South Coast 
to rely on out-of-area monitoring data to establish separate ozone 
planning areas to obtain the benefits of a lower ozone classification 
or a redesignation to attainment, we note that each request for a 
boundary change or a change in designation from ``nonattainment'' to 
``attainment'' is evaluated on a case-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 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

[[Page 18123]]

maintenance plan does not demonstrate that it will maintain levels 
below the standard for the next ten years. The SCAQMD requests that the 
EPA provide a reasoned explanation demonstrating that this observed 
increasing trend at the Pechanga Reservation is not real, and that 
Pechanga ozone levels are actually decreasing as would be expected if 
Temecula data were representative.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #2: The Pechanga Tribe began operation 
of an ozone monitor in mid-2008. In 2011, the EPA discovered an 
equipment problem at the Pechanga monitor that had the effect of 
diluting ambient ozone concentrations recorded by the monitor. The 
problem was corrected by the Tribe later in 2011, and the EPA considers 
the data collected since the problem was corrected to be valid for 
regulatory purposes. Conversely, the EPA considers the data collected 
prior to correction of the equipment problem to be invalid for NAAQS 
comparison purposes. The basis for invalidating the data are a 
comparison of ozone concentrations measured at other ozone monitors in 
the region that shows artificially low ozone readings at the Pechanga 
monitoring site throughout all of 2009, and all of 2010, suggesting 
that the equipment problem affected data values throughout those 
periods.\11\ Since the problem was corrected, in contrast to the 
earlier-collected data, the ozone data from the Pechanga monitor track 
well with other monitors in the region, particularly the Temecula 
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See EPA Region IX, Pechanga Ozone Data Assessment, August 
4, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the data collected at the Pechanga monitor from 2008 
through 2011 (i.e., until equipment correction in late 2011) are 
invalid, we disagree with the SCAQMD's contention that the data shows 
that ozone concentrations have trended upward at the Pechanga 
Reservation but have trended downward at the Temecula site. While the 
preliminary data for 2014 collected at the Pechanga and Temecula sites 
are useful in showing that both monitors remain well below the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard, we do not believe that a conclusion can be drawn 
regarding potential differences in ozone concentration trends at the 
two sites. First, the preliminary 2014 Temecula data has the potential 
to be artificially low due to missing data during the peak ozone season 
(see Response to SCAQMD Comment #1). Second, because we only have two 
complete years of data (2012 and 2013) and one year of preliminary data 
(2014) from the Pechanga monitor, we do not believe that we have 
sufficient data to establish a long-term trend of ozone concentrations 
at the Pechanga Reservation. However, we need only three years of data 
for an attainment determination, and we have three years of complete, 
quality-assured and certified data showing that the ozone 
concentrations at the Temecula site meet the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. Also, taking into account preliminary 2014 data, we now have 
three years of ambient ozone concentration data from the Pechanga 
monitor that show a preliminary design value for 2012-2014 of 0.076 
ppm, i.e., well below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (0.084 ppm or 
less). Moreover, as cited in our proposed rule (on page 440), with 
respect to our determination of representativeness, we are not relying 
solely on the limited ozone data from the two monitors but are also 
relying on modeling data published by the SCAQMD.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>) through the 
maintenance period. See table 2 of our proposed rule at 80 FR 447. 
Generally, maintenance plans can demonstrate maintenance of the 
standard by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its 
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by 
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will 
not cause a violation of the standard.\13\ In the proposed rule, we 
agree that the downward trend in regional emissions of ozone precursors 
is sufficient to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard through 2025. We also note, however, that modeling results 
published by the SCAQMD is consistent with our approval of the 
maintenance demonstration in the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \14\ See figure 5-13 of the SCAQMD's 2012 Final Air Quality 
Management Plan (February 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> due to this action, will create a significant 
competitive advantage and attract development beyond that anticipated 
in the maintenance plan. Further, the SCAQMD further contends that such 
unanticipated growth could result in higher-than-expected emissions 
with the potential to adversely affect ozone air quality downwind of 
the reservation.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #3: We do not agree with the SCAQMD's 
assertions. First, in our proposed rule, we indicate that EPA's 
regulations governing review and permitting of new or modified 
stationary sources in Indian country \15\ (i.e., ``New Source Review'' 
or NSR) apply to the Pechanga Reservation. See 80 FR at 443 and 444. 
These regulations include the EPA's Indian country minor NSR program, 
codified at 40 CFR 49.151 through 49.161, and the Indian country major 
NSR program for nonattainment areas (referred to as ``nonattainment 
NSR'' or ``NNSR''), codified at 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173. The EPA's 
regulations for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), 
codified at 40 CFR 52.21, also apply to any new major source or major 
modification proposed at the Pechanga Reservation except for

[[Page 18124]]

the emissions from such source or modification that are covered by 
NNSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to 
(1) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the 
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through 
the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian communities within the 
borders of the United States whether within the original or 
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 
without the limits of a state, and (3) all Indian allotments, the 
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as to whether the EPA has adequate resources to properly 
implement the Indian country minor source program, we note that, 
historically, the EPA has administered the PSD program under 40 CFR 
52.21 in many parts of California but that, in recent years, the EPA 
has successfully transferred its PSD permitting responsibilities to the 
relevant California air districts. We have done so by working with the 
air districts and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop, 
adopt and submit permitting rules that meet the PSD SIP requirements. 
Once approved, the responsibility for PSD permitting vests in the air 
districts, and while the EPA continues to have a role in district PSD 
permit reviews, the resource demands are far fewer than where the EPA 
must administer the entire PSD program in a given district. Moreover, 
EPA permitting resources that had been used to draft PSD permits in 
these districts can then be reassigned to other tasks, including those 
related to the Indian country minor NSR program. Since 2012, the EPA 
has approved the PSD SIPs for the following California air districts: 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (77 FR 
65305, October 26, 2012); and Eastern Kern APCD, Imperial County APCD, 
Placer County APCD, and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (77 
FR 73316, December 10, 2012).
    In addition, as the SCAQMD notes in its comments, the EPA can 
lighten its load by implementing ``general permits,'' and as the SCAQMD 
also notes, the EPA has proposed, but not yet finalized, such permits 
for the Indian country minor NSR program. Our proposed general permits 
cover 11 broad source categories that we expect to be most relevant in 
the context of Indian country minor NSR. See 79 FR 2546 (January 14, 
2014) and 79 FR 41846 (July 17, 2014). We expect to finalize the first 
set of general permits (i.e., those proposed in January 2014) in the 
near term, and such permits will streamline the permitting process for 
the EPA in connection with administration of the Indian country minor 
NSR program.
    Third, the EPA notes that, with or without this action, new or 
modified sources on the Pechanga Reservation are already subject to the 
requirements of the EPA's Indian country NSR rules, as cited above. Our 
action today does not change this fact or change the stringency of 
EPA's Indian country NSR rules. We recognize that, in some respects, 
EPA's Indian country NSR rules are less stringent than the 
corresponding requirements under the SCAQMD's NSR rules that apply 
outside Indian country in the South Coast. For example, under the 
SCAQMD's NSR rules, certain new or modified minor sources are subject 
to offset requirements whereas no such requirements apply under the 
EPA's Indian country minor NSR rule. However, with respect to control 
technology requirements, while the Indian country NSR rules do not 
specifically require new or modified minor sources to meet best 
available control technology (BACT) or lowest achievable emission rate 
(LAER) level of control per se, the rules do require the EPA (or the 
Indian Tribe in cases where a Tribal agency is assisting the EPA with 
administration of the program through a delegation) to conduct a case-
by-case control technology review to determine the appropriate level of 
control, if any, necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, as 
well as the corresponding emission limitations for the affected 
emission units at the new or modified source. See 40 CFR 49.154(c). In 
carrying out this determination, among other considerations, the EPA 
takes into account typical control technology or other emission 
reduction measures used by similar sources in surrounding areas. See 40 
CFR 49.154(c)(1)(ii). Thus, the corresponding control technology 
requirements (i.e., minor source ``BACT'') that the SCAQMD applies to 
minor sources subject to its authority would inform the EPA's 
determination regarding control technology requirements and associated 
emission limitations for new or modified minor stationary sources on 
the Pechanga Reservation.
    Nonetheless, we recognize that our actions today will result in an 
increase in the applicable major source NSR threshold from 10 tpy to 
100 tpy for ozone precursor emissions, which means that new or modified 
sources on the Pechanga Reservation with potential to emit (``PTE'') 
between 10 and 100 tpy of VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> will no longer be 
subject to the LAER and emissions offset requirements that otherwise 
would have applied under the EPA's Indian country major source NNSR 
rule but instead will be subject to the control technology review 
described above for new or modified minor sources under the EPA's 
Indian country minor NSR rule. However, applicable air pollution 
regulations and requirements are but one of many factors that influence 
business development decisions and we do not have information that 
supports a conclusion that the Pechanga Reservation will attract new 
development at such a rate as to result in emissions growth beyond that 
anticipated in the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan.
    Fourth, the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan projects that current 
stationary source emissions at the Pechanga Reservation will increase 
33 percent for NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCAQMD is correct in noting that the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance 
Plan's projection in emissions associated with the Pechanga Reservation 
do not account for emissions growth from significant new stationary 
sources; however, there is no evidence of any specific new stationary 
sources that are proposed at the reservation, and as noted above, air 
pollution control considerations are simply one of many considerations 
that businesses take into account when deciding to develop at a given 
site. Without such evidence, the EPA declines to speculate on the types 
or number of new stationary sources that might locate at the 
reservation over the next ten years (or their associated emissions and 
downwind impacts) on account of the change in air pollution control 
requirements (i.e., higher major source threshold for NNSR). 
Furthermore, any new stationary sources would be subject to the EPA's 
review under the Indian country minor NSR rules,\17\ the Indian country 
NNSR rules, or the PSD regulation. All three programs provide for 
control technology review and air quality impacts analysis, and thus, 
we can reasonably rely on such review to ensure that emission

[[Page 18125]]

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

    \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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 
See 40 CFR 49.153 (table 1 to Sec.  49.153).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD Comment #4: The SCAQMD challenges the EPA's reliance on 
upwind, out-of-area controls that do not apply on the Pechanga 
Reservation as constituting acceptable ``other permanent and 
enforceable measures'' that provide permanent and enforceable 
reductions and related improvement in air quality as required for 
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). The SCAQMD contends 
that, while some reliance on out-of-area controls may be appropriate, 
the EPA's near-total reliance on such controls is not reasonable. The 
SCAQMD believes that local areas must also do their part to improve air 
quality and reach attainment of the standard.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #4: CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is one 
of five statutory criteria that the EPA must use to evaluate requests 
for redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment. It 
precludes such redesignation unless the EPA determines that the 
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable 
implementation plan and applicable federal air pollution control 
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. (In this 
context, ``applicable implementation plan'' refers to the TIP.) As 
such, the criterion calls for the identification of the measures that 
provided the emissions reductions that resulted in corresponding 
reductions in ambient concentrations such that, where the standard was 
once violated, the standard is now attained. The evaluation under 
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) also involves a determination that the 
improvement in air quality is not due to temporary reductions in 
emission rates due to temporary adverse economic conditions or 
unusually favorable meteorology.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the criterion is to ensure the permanence and 
enforceability of reductions that have provided for improved air 
quality and attainment of the standard. The statute does not qualify 
the phrase ``other permanent and enforceable reductions'' with a 
reference to those reductions that are in effect in the area, and thus, 
it does not matter whether the measures responsible for attainment are 
in effect in the area for which a redesignation request is being 
evaluated but only that they are permanent and enforceable.\19\ For 
instance, it is common knowledge that states in the Eastern United 
States rely in part on emissions reductions from measures adopted by 
upwind states in attaining the standard. The degree of reliance differs 
among the states, of course, but those measures adopted in the upwind 
states qualify as ``other permanent and enforceable reductions'' for 
the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). Given the language of 
this particular phrase of section 107, reliance on the legislative 
history for interpretative purposes is not necessary, but the EPA, in 
response to this comment, did review the relevant legislative history 
and found no indication of any special meaning or limitation to the 
phrase ``other permanent or enforceable reductions'' for the purposes 
of redesignation.\20\ Absent clear legislative history to the contrary, 
the EPA's interpretation of the statute is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.)
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, we found that the improvement in air quality at 
the Pechanga Reservation is the result of permanent and enforceable 
emissions reductions from applicable federal air pollutant control 
regulations, particularly those that control emissions from on-road and 
nonroad vehicles, and ``other permanent and enforceable reductions'' 
from upwind sources resulting from CARB and SCAQMD regulations. See our 
proposed rule at page 446. All of the relevant CARB and SCAQMD 
regulations are either subject to a waiver or authorization under CAA 
section 209 or are approved by the EPA into the California SIP, and 
thus are permanent and enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
    As to the SCAQMD's contention that, while some reliance on upwind 
out-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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Response to SCAQMD Comment #5: The SCAQMD is correct that the 
emissions inventory for the Pechanga Reservation in the Pechanga Ozone 
Maintenance Plan is based on a population of approximately 500 (the 
actual number used for the estimates is 467) and that on-road mobile 
emissions were scaled based on relative population. First, with respect 
to population, the population of Pechanga Reservation (467 full-time 
residents) used in the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan to scale 
regional emissions is correct. The higher value (800 residents) cited 
in the proposed rule at page 437 is incorrect.
    Second, we agree that use of scaling of regional emissions based on 
population may underestimate on-road mobile emissions at the Pechanga 
Reservation given the significant number of non-resident motor vehicle 
trips generated by the Pechanga Resort and Casino. Therefore, for this 
final rule, we re-calculated vehicle emissions

[[Page 18126]]

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 non-resident vehicle mix based on data from another Indian casino 
and resort. Resident trips were assumed to be light-duty autos and 
trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For year 2025, we conservatively increased non-resident vehicle 
trips by 33% and estimated the corresponding emissions using year 2025 
emissions factors from EMFAC2011. Interim year (2015 and 2020) 
emissions were estimated by interpolating the number of trips between 
2012 and 2025 and using the applicable year's EMFAC2011 emissions 
rates. We present the revised emissions estimates in table 2 below, 
which presents the same emissions inventory information as table 2 from 
the proposed rule except for the revised estimates for the Pechanga 
Reservation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

Table 2--Ozone Precursor Emissions Estimates for Pechanga Reservation and South Coast, 2012, 2015, 2020 and 2025
                                       [Summer-day average, tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Ozone precursor                         2012           2015           2020           2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pechanga Reservation (Based on data as shown in
 Maintenance Plan except for on-road emissions,
 which are calculated by the EPA):
    VOC.............................................          0.151          0.123          0.094          0.081
    NOX.............................................          0.088          0.082          0.072          0.065
South Coast (Based on CARB data as shown in
 Maintenance Plan rounded to the nearest 10 tons):
    VOC.............................................        500            460            420            410
    NOX.............................................        490            430            340            280
South Coast (Based on 2012 South Coast AQMP data
 rounded to the nearest 10 tons):
VOC.................................................        540            480            450            440
NOX.................................................        560            470            370            310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the revised calculations for on-road emissions at the 
Pechanga Reservation, emissions at the Pechanga Reservation are 
estimated to be several times higher than presented in the Pechanga 
Ozone Maintenance Plan and in the proposed rule but are predicted to 
decrease through the maintenance period due to significant reductions 
in vehicular emissions resulting from continued implementation of state 
and federal motor vehicle control programs. Moreover, our conclusion 
from the proposed rule that the emissions associated with the Pechanga 
Reservation are minimal in relation to regional ozone precursor 
emissions remains unchanged given that, even as revised, Pechanga 
Reservation emissions represent 0.03% or less of regional emissions of 
VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> for all of the years that were analyzed.
    SCAQMD Comment #6: The SCAQMD states that the EPA fails to explain 
its legal theory that would allow the Tribe to fail to identify 
specific contingency measures in its maintenance plan.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #6: CAA section 175A(d) requires that 
maintenance plans contain such contingency provisions as the EPA deems 
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation 
of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area. Such provisions shall include a requirement that the 
State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the 
air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area 
before redesignation of the area as an attainment area. In this 
context, the reference to ``State'' and ``SIP'' in CAA section 175A 
corresponds to ``Tribe'' and ``TIP.''
    Generally, the EPA believes that, to meet the requirements of CAA 
section 175A(d), contingency provisions of maintenance plans should 
identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for 
adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by 
the State.\24\ However, the CAA does not require that specific 
contingency measures be identified other than those measures that were 
part of the control strategy that a State or Tribe relied on to attain 
the standard but is not relying on for maintenance of the standard and 
is no longer retaining as an active measure in the SIP or TIP. No such 
measures exist for the Pechanga Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Notwithstanding the absence of a statutory requirement for specific 
contingency measures, as noted above, the EPA generally deems it 
necessary for contingency provisions of maintenance plans to identify 
specific measures to assure that the State or Tribe will promptly 
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the 
redesignation of the area as an attainment area. Relevant 
considerations for the EPA in this regard include the probability of a 
future violation of the standard (based on how close the area is to 
violating the standard, emissions or ambient concentration trends, and 
the variability of ambient concentrations from year to year) and the 
reasonable foreseeability of specific sources or source categories as 
likely to be responsible for future violations if they occur.
    In this instance, the ambient concentrations (0.077 ppm based on 
2011-2013 data collected at the Temecula monitor) are below the 
applicable NAAQS (0.08 ppm), and the emissions trends in the South 
Coast show steep declines of both VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> between 2012 
and 2025 (see table 2 of the proposed rule), and thus there is a 
relatively low probably of a future

[[Page 18127]]

violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard at the Pechanga 
Reservation. Moreover, any future violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard at the Pechanga Reservation is unlikely to be caused by 
sources at the reservation given the predominant influence of upwind 
transport of ozone from upwind metropolitan areas in the South Coast. 
Therefore, the contingency provisions of the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance 
Plan include annual review of the ozone data and, in the event of a 
monitored violation, a commitment to work with the EPA to identify, 
adopt, and implement any additional necessary and appropriate 
measure(s) needed to promptly correct the violation.\25\ Under the 
particular circumstances described above, the EPA has found that the 
contingency provisions of the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan meet the 
requirements of section 175A(d), even though the Pechanga Ozone 
Maintenance Plan identifies no specific contingency measures for 
adoption by the Tribe or the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    SCAQMD Comment #7: The SCAQMD asserts that the EPA's proposal to 
create a separate attainment area for the Pechanga Reservation for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard is inconsistent with the EPA's Tribal 
Designations Policy. More specifically, the SCAQMD states that the EPA 
must explain why it fails to take into account the fact that the 
Pechanga Reservation is not separate from the adjacent South Coast or 
San Diego areas by topographic or other geographic features whereas the 
policy cites the presence of topographic or other geographic barriers 
as a factor to consider where a Tribe submits a request for a separate 
attainment area adjacent to a nonattainment area.
    The SCAQMD notes the EPA's decision to give ``particular weight'' 
to the ``jurisdictional boundaries'' factor in its tribal designation 
policy but asserts that the EPA fails to explain what that means, and 
to the extent that the EPA is referring to the fact that a small part 
of the Pechanga Reservation is located in San Diego County, this factor 
should not be determinative because two of the considerations cited by 
the EPA in evaluating the ``jurisdictional boundaries'' factor are not 
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 the jurisdictional boundaries factor, the EPA will grant a 
request for a separate area for any tribe that operates a monitor, even 
if it does not meet federal requirements.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #7: We do not agree. First, the EPA has 
proposed action on two separate requests: (1) the Tribe's June 23, 2009 
boundary change request to establish a separate ozone nonattainment 
area; and (2) the Tribe's May 9, 2014 request to redesignate the 
Pechanga Reservation from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. The second request of course presumes an 
affirmative response by the EPA to the first request. The EPA has 
chosen to take action on both requests in the same document, but 
different considerations and criteria apply to the different actions. 
For instance, some considerations that are germane to the evaluation of 
the Tribe's 2009 boundary change request are not germane to the 
evaluation of the Tribe's 2014 request for redesignation. Thus, it 
follows that some information from the 2009 request would not be 
repeated in the 2014 redesignation request. For example, the existence 
of a tribal permitting program is not a requirement for redesignation, 
but the tribe's interest in developing such a program prospectively is 
a consideration for the boundary change.
    Second, the EPA believes that a request from a tribe for a separate 
nonattainment or attainment area should be supported by data from a 
tribe's own regulatory monitor or, at the very least, by data from a 
proximate regulatory monitor that is representative of air quality in 
the tribe's Indian country area. In this case, the Pechanga operates 
its own regulatory monitor, and in addition, there is a proximate 
representative monitor operated by the SCAQMD at the Temecula 
monitoring site. The EPA did not rely on the Tribe's ozone data for 
this action because the data was not complete over the 2011-2013 
period, not because the monitor was non-regulatory.
    Third, the SCAQMD is correct in noting that the EPA, in evaluating 
the ``geography/topography'' factor as part of our evaluation of the 
Tribe's boundary change request, concluded that there are no 
significant topographic barriers to air flow in the area. However, our 
Tribal Designations Policy calls for a multi-factor evaluation of 
requests for designation of separate tribal air quality planning areas 
or requests for a boundary change to establish such areas. The 
``geography/topography'' factor is but one of the various factors we 
take into account. In this instance, we concluded that, considering the 
three factors of air quality data, meteorology, and topography, the EPA 
could reasonably include the Pechanga Reservation in either the South 
Coast air quality planning area to the north, or the San Diego County 
air quality planning area to the south, or alternatively, the EPA could 
establish a separate nonattainment area for the Pechanga Reservation as 
it did for the 2008 ozone standard, and more recently, for the 2012 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. See page 441 of our proposed rule.
    Further, taking into account the minimal emissions associated with 
activities on the Pechanga Reservation and the corresponding minimal 
contribution from Pechanga-related emissions sources to regional ozone 
levels, we concluded that it was appropriate, and consistent with the 
principles of the Tribal Designations Policy, to give particular weight 
to the jurisdictional boundaries factor. Under this factor, we consider 
what the existing jurisdictional boundaries are for the purposes of 
providing a clearly defined legal boundary of the area pertaining to 
the designation or boundary change request and carrying out air quality 
planning and enforcement functions. When the Pechanga Tribe acquired 
parcels in San Diego County is not germane.\26\ What is

[[Page 18128]]

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 Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians Land 
Transfer Act of 2007. See 78 FR 46603 (August 1, 2013). The public 
law that was ultimately passed by the 110th Congress and signed by 
the President on October 10, 2008 was originally introduced on July 
22, 2004 as House Bill No. 4908 in the 108th Congress. On July 28, 
2005, the bill was reintroduced in the 109th Congress as House Bill 
3507. The bill that later became law was reintroduced in the 110th 
Congress as House Bill 2963 on July 10, 2007. We note that the Tribe 
began working with the Bureau of Land Management in the 1990's to 
place these lands into trust. See Statement of Mark Macarro, 
Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians, Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2963, Pechanga Band of 
Luise[ntilde]o 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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) standard. See 80 FR 
2206, at 2225 (January 15, 2015). As such, we will also be aligning 
the ozone air quality planning area with the 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality planning area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in this instance, we are giving ``particular 
weight'' to the jurisdictional boundaries factor. This means that the 
jurisdictional factor outweighs other factors that might otherwise 
counsel against establishment of a separate air quality planning area. 
In this case, for example, the relevant Indian country area is 
significantly impacted by upwind sources, a fact that may otherwise 
support inclusion of the Indian country area in a larger area. However, 
we have decided that, in this instance, such considerations are 
outweighed by the jurisdictional boundaries factor and thus proposed to 
grant the request by the Tribe for a separate area. Our giving of 
particular weight to the jurisdictional boundaries factor is 
appropriate given the minimal emissions associated with activities on 
the Pechanga Reservation, the corresponding minimal contribution from 
Pechanga-related emissions sources to regional ozone levels, and the 
location of the reservation on the border of two separate larger areas, 
is consistent with Tribal Designations Policy. See page 7 of the Tribal 
Designations Policy for examples of circumstances in which the 
jurisdictional boundaries factor may bear the most weight in evaluating 
requests for a separate area.
    SCAQMD Comment #8: The SCAQMD contends that the EPA's action to 
establish the Pechanga Reservation as a separate air quality planning 
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is inconsistent with the 
principles that EPA articulated in a previous rulemaking in which the 
Agency reclassified Indian country (except for the Morongo Reservation 
and Pechanga Reservation) within the South Coast consistent with the 
State's request for reclassification of lands under State jurisdiction 
within the South Coast from ``Severe-17'' to ``Extreme.''
    The previous rulemaking to which the SCAQMD refers, ``Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin 
Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Coachella Valley, and Sacramento Metro 
Ozone Nonattainment Areas; Reclassification,'' was proposed at 74 FR 
43654 (August 27, 2009) and finalized (except for the Morongo 
Reservation and Pechanga Reservation) at 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010). As 
the SCAQMD notes, in the previous rulemaking, the EPA based its 
decision to reclassify areas of Indian country (other than the Morongo 
Reservation and Pechanga Reservation, for which final action was 
deferred) on such considerations as: (1) Boundaries of nonattainment 
areas are drawn to encompass both areas of direct sources of the 
pollution problem as well as nearby areas in the same airshed; (2) 
Emissions changes in lower-classified areas could hinder planning 
efforts to attain the NAAQS within the overall area through the 
application of less stringent requirements relative to those that apply 
in the area with a higher ozone classification; and (3) Uniformity of 
classification throughout a nonattainment area is thus a guiding 
principle and premise when an area is being reclassified.
    The SCAQMD contends that the EPA has not explained why the 
rationale articulated by the EPA in the above reclassification 
rulemaking with respect to the areas of Indian country that were 
reclassified to ``Extreme'' does not continue to apply in evaluating 
the request by the Pechanga to establish a separate air quality 
planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #8: Since the EPA's 2010 final action to 
grant the State of California's request to reclassify the portion of 
the South Coast subject to State jurisdiction, and to reclassify Indian 
country (other than the Morongo and Pechanga Reservations) in the South 
Coast consistent with the State's request, the EPA has issued its 
Tribal Designations Policy and applied the principles of the policy in 
designating the Pechanga Reservation as a separate ozone nonattainment 
area for the 2008 ozone standard. In so doing, the EPA remains 
cognizant of the considerations set forth in that earlier rulemaking 
that caution against undue subdivision of larger air quality planning 
areas into smaller areas with different classifications. However, the 
EPA is also cognizant of the distinct jurisdictional principles 
associated with Indian reservations and the general absence of state 
regulatory jurisdiction in such areas. The Tribal Designation Policy 
was issued in part to apply these principles and in recognition of 
tribal sovereignty in the designations context.
    More specifically, we continue to believe that boundaries of 
nonattainment areas should generally encompass both areas of direct 
sources of the pollution problem as well as nearby areas in the same 
airshed and continue to consider uniformity of classification as a 
guiding principle to avoid the potential hindrance by lower-classified 
areas to regional planning efforts to attain the standard. The Tribal 
Designation Policy retains these considerations in evaluating requests 
by tribes for separate areas as part of a multi-factor analysis. In 
this instance, we have concluded that establishment of the Pechanga 
Reservation as a separate area would not hinder regional efforts to 
attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS, and the benefit of retaining the 
Pechanga Reservation in two separate airsheds (South Coast and San 
Diego) is outweighed by other considerations, namely, the 
jurisdictional boundaries factor.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons set forth in the proposed rule and in response to 
comments above, the EPA is taking final action to establish the 
Pechanga Reservation as a separate air quality planning area for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard, to approve the Tribe's submittal of the 
Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan, and to approve the Tribe's request to 
redesignate the 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 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

[[Page 18129]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Second, pursuant to CAA section 110(k), the EPA is taking final 
action to approve the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan, submitted by the 
Tribe on November 4, 2014, as the Tribe's TIP for maintaining the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard within the Pechanga Reservation for ten years 
beyond redesignation, because it meets the requirements for maintenance 
plans under CAA section 175A.
    Lastly, pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3), and based in part on our 
approval of the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan, the EPA is taking 
final action to grant a request from the Tribe to redesignate the 
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 or modified stationary sources proposed at the Pechanga 
Reservation remain subject to major source nonattainment NNSR, however, 
by virtue of the reservation's classification as a ``Moderate'' ozone 
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard. The NNSR major source 
threshold in ``Moderate'' ozone nonattainment areas is 100 tpy.
    The EPA finds that there is good cause for approval of this TIP and 
redesignation to attainment to become effective immediately upon 
publication because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the 
nature of a redesignation to attainment which relieves the area from 
certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The 
immediate effective date for this redesignation is authorized under 
both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may 
become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule 
``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and 
section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days 
after publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
found and published with the rule.''

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an Indian reservation air quality 
planning area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a 
maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 
status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional 
regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by the TIP and 
applicable federal rules. Redesignation to attainment does not in and 
of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of less stringent requirements contained in the CAA for 
areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, under 
circumstances where a tribe is determined as eligible for TAS for the 
purposes of section 110 with respect to a given TIP, the Administrator 
is required to approve a TIP submission that complies with the 
provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 
7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing TIP submissions, the EPA's 
role is to approve tribal choices, provided that they meet the criteria 
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these actions merely approve a 
tribal plan and redesignation request as meeting federal requirements 
and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
tribal law. For these reasons, these actions:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Do not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Are not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the final actions have ``tribal implications'' as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
with respect to the Pechanga Tribe. However, the actions would not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs or preempt tribal law. 
Moreover, these actions respond directly to specific requests submitted 
by the affected tribe and follow from extensive coordination and 
consultation between representatives of the Pechanga Tribe and the EPA 
about these and other related matters.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect

[[Page 18130]]

until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 2, 2015. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

0
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

0
2. Subpart L of part 49 is amended by adding an undesignated center 
heading and Sec.  49.5514 to read as follows:

Implementation Plan for the Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission 
Indians of the Pechanga Reservation


Sec.  49.5514  EPA-approved Tribal rules and plans.

    (a) Purpose and scope. This section contains the approved 
implementation plan for the Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission 
Indians of the Pechanga Reservation dated May 2014. The plan consists 
of a redesignation request, a demonstration of maintenance of the 1997 
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard, and related 
commitments to continue monitoring and to implement contingency 
provisions in the event of a monitored violation of the standard.
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory 
measures.

   EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures for the Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o
                                   Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of nonregulatory or quasi-
      regulatory TIP provision        Tribal submittal date     EPA approval date            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone Redesignation Request and      November 4, 2014......  [INSERT Federal         Tribal redesignation
 Maintenance Plan for Pechanga Band                           Register CITATION       request and maintenance
 of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians                            April 3, 2015.          plan for the 1997 8-hour
 of the Pechanga Reservation                                                          ozone standard.
 Nonattainment Area (May 2014).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
5. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California--1997 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'' by:
0
a. Revising the entry under ``Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA'';
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Pechanga Reservation'' following the entry 
``San Bernardino County (part)'' under the entry ``Los Angeles-South 
Coast Air Basin, CA'';
0
c. Revising the entry under ``San Diego, CA''; and
0
d. Adding Footnote (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                           California--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                                                 [Primary and secondary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Designation a                                             Classification
          Designated area          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\                            Type                        Date \1\                   Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Los Angeles--South Coast Air        ..........................  Nonattainment.........................              (\2\)   Subpart 2/Extreme.
 Basin, CA: d f.
    Los Angeles County (part).....  ..........................  Nonattainment.........................              (\2\)   Subpart 2/Extreme.

[[Page 18131]]

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

[[Page 18132]]

 
        That portion of Riverside
         County which lies to the
         west of a line described
         as follows: Beginning at
         the Riverside-San Diego
         County boundary and
         running north along the
         range line common to
         Range 4 East and Range 3
         East, San Bernardino Base
         and Meridian; then east
         along the Township line
         common to Township 8
         South and Township 7
         South; then north along
         the range line common to
         Range 5 East and Range 4
         East; then west along the
         Township line common to
         Township 6 South and
         Township 7 South to the
         southwest corner of
         Section 34, Township 6
         South, Range 4 East; then
         north along the west
         boundaries of Sections
         34, 27, 22, 15, 10, and
         3, Township 6 South,
         Range 4 East; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 5
         South and Township 6
         South; then north along
         the range line common to
         Range 4 East and Range 3
         East; then west along the
         south boundaries of
         Sections 13, 14, 15, 16,
         17, and 18, Township 5
         South, Range 3 East; then
         north along the range
         line common to Range 2
         East and Range 3 East; to
         the Riverside-San
         Bernardino County line.
    San Bernardino County (part)..  ..........................  Nonattainment.........................              (\2\)   Subpart 2/Extreme.
        That portion of San
         Bernardino County which
         lies south and west of a
         line described as
         follows: Beginning at the
         San Bernardino-Riverside
         County boundary and
         running north along the
         range line common to
         Range 3 East and Range 2
         East, San Bernardino Base
         and Meridian; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 3
         North and Township 2
         North to the San
         Bernardino-Los Angeles
         County boundary.
Pechanga Reservation \c\..........  April 3, 2015.............  Attainment.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
San Diego, CA
    San Diego County (part)\f\....
        That portion of San Diego   July 5, 2013..............  Attainment.
         County that excludes the
         areas listed below: La
         Posta Areas #1 and #2,\b\
         Cuyapaipe Area,\b\
         Manzanita Area,\b\ Campo
         Areas #1 and #2\b\.
    La Posta Areas #1 and #2 \b\..  ..........................  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
    Cuyapaipe Area \b\............  ..........................  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
    Manzanita Area \b\............  ..........................  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Campo Areas #1 and #2 \b\.........  ..........................  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes Indian country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
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 the Tribes listed or not listed.
d Excludes Morongo Band of Mission Indians' Indian country in Riverside County.
 * * * * * * *
f Excludes the Pechanga Reservation.

[[Page 18133]]

 
\1\This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is June 4, 2010.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-07534 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>