Source: https://www.global-regulation.com/law/united-states/31078/approval-of-tribal-implementation-plan-and-designation-of-air-quality-planning-area%253b-pechanga-band-of-luiseo-mission-indians.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-20 22:33:35
Document Index: 512760265

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 50', 'art 50', 'art 49', '§ 49', '§ 49', 'art 2']

Approval of Tribal Implementation Plan and Designation of Air Quality Planning Area; Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (United States)
Link to law: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/text/raw_text/201/507/534.txt
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.
Ken Israels, Grants and Program Integration Office (AIR-8), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4102, israels.ken@epa.gov .
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 2.5 standard. 6
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 published a final rule that, among other things, revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes, including transportation conformity, effective April 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). After that date, transportation conformity will no longer be required for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The Pechanga Reservation air quality planning area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard, and transportation conformity continues to apply for that NAAQS. 7
As we explained in our proposed rule, upon the effective date of our action, certain CAA requirements that had applied to the Pechanga Reservation by virtue of its inclusion in the South Coast “Extreme” ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard no longer apply, nor do the requirements that had applied to the reservation by virtue of its designation as “Severe-17” for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The requirements that no longer apply include, among others, the nonattainment New Source Review (“NNSR”) major source threshold of 10 tons per year (tpy) for ozone precursor emissions in “Extreme” ozone nonattainment areas. New or modified stationary sources proposed at the Pechanga Reservation remain subject to major source nonattainment NNSR, however, by virtue of the reservation's classification as a “Moderate” ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard. The NNSR major source threshold in “Moderate” ozone nonattainment areas is 100 tpy for VOC or NO X .
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 2.5 standard in 2015. In summary, we noted in our proposed rule that the proposed changes in the boundaries and the status of this area are supported by several unique factors that are unlikely to be present in other nonattainment areas.
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.
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.
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
2012-2014 design value a
Temecula (06-065-0016)
Pechanga (06-065-0009)
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.
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.
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 maintenance plan does not demonstrate that it will maintain levels below the standard for the next ten years. The SCAQMD requests that the EPA provide a reasoned explanation demonstrating that this observed increasing trend at the Pechanga Reservation is not real, and that Pechanga ozone levels are actually decreasing as would be expected if Temecula data were representative.
Response to SCAQMD Comment #2: The Pechanga Tribe began operation of an ozone monitor in mid-2008. In 2011, the EPA discovered an equipment problem at the Pechanga monitor that had the effect of diluting ambient ozone concentrations recorded by the monitor. The problem was corrected by the Tribe later in 2011, and the EPA considers the data collected since the problem was corrected to be valid for regulatory purposes. Conversely, the EPA considers the data collected prior to correction of the equipment problem to be invalid for NAAQS comparison purposes. The basis for invalidating the data are a comparison of ozone concentrations measured at other ozone monitors in the region that shows artificially low ozone readings at the Pechanga monitoring site throughout all of 2009, and all of 2010, suggesting that the equipment problem affected data values throughout those periods. 11
Since the problem was corrected, in contrast to the earlier-collected data, the ozone data from the Pechanga monitor track well with other monitors in the region, particularly the Temecula monitor.
Given that the data collected at the Pechanga monitor from 2008 through 2011 ( i.e., until equipment correction in late 2011) are invalid, we disagree with the SCAQMD's contention that the data shows that ozone concentrations have trended upward at the Pechanga Reservation but have trended downward at the Temecula site. While the preliminary data for 2014 collected at the Pechanga and Temecula sites are useful in showing that both monitors remain well below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, we do not believe that a conclusion can be drawn regarding potential differences in ozone concentration trends at the two sites. First, the preliminary 2014 Temecula data has the potential to be artificially low due to missing data during the peak ozone season (see Response to SCAQMD Comment #1). Second, because we only have two complete years of data (2012 and 2013) and one year of preliminary data (2014) from the Pechanga monitor, we do not believe that we have sufficient data to establish a long-term trend of ozone concentrations at the Pechanga Reservation. However, we need only three years of data for an attainment determination, and we have three years of complete, quality-assured and certified data showing that the ozone concentrations at the Temecula site meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Also, taking into account preliminary 2014 data, we now have three years of ambient ozone concentration data from the Pechanga monitor that show a preliminary design value for 2012-2014 of 0.076 ppm, i.e., well below the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (0.084 ppm or less). Moreover, as cited in our proposed rule (on page 440), with respect to our determination of representativeness, we are not relying solely on the limited ozone data from the two monitors but are also relying on modeling data published by the SCAQMD. 12
As to future ozone concentrations, the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan's demonstration of maintenance through 2025 is not based on an evaluation of ambient ozone trends but rather on an evaluation of emissions inventory data for the South Coast that shows a downward trend in ozone precursor emissions (VOC and NO X ) through the maintenance period. See table 2 of our proposed rule at 80 FR 447. Generally, maintenance plans can demonstrate maintenance of the standard by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the standard. 13
In the proposed rule, we agree that the downward trend in regional emissions of ozone precursors is sufficient to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard through 2025. We also note, however, that modeling results published by the SCAQMD is consistent with our approval of the maintenance demonstration in the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan. 14
SCAQMD Comment #3: The SCAQMD contends that the maintenance plan fails to include sufficient control measures to prevent adverse effects from emissions growth on the reservation. Specifically, SCAQMD seeks confirmation that the EPA's minor NSR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Indian country applies on the Pechanga Reservation, but notes that, even if it does apply, the EPA may not have adequate resources to properly implement such a program. Further, the SCAQMD is concerned that new or modified stationary sources will not necessarily be subject to the same requirements (such as those related to control technology and offsets) under the EPA's Indian country minor NSR rule as would apply if the sources were proposed in areas subject to the SCAQMD's jurisdiction. The SCAQMD contends that different requirements for new or modified stationary sources, particularly the increase in the applicable NNSR major source threshold from 10 tpy to 100 tpy for VOC and NO X 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 the emissions from such source or modification that are covered by NNSR.
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 X 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 X 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 X emissions by sources such as the existing boilers due to greater usage rates. We believe that the plan's assumption that, over the next ten years, changes in emissions at the reservation will stem from expansion of the existing resort and casino, rather than from development of new types of commercial or industrial businesses, is reasonable.
The SCAQMD is correct in noting that the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan's projection in emissions associated with the Pechanga Reservation do not account for emissions growth from significant new stationary sources; however, there is no evidence of any specific new stationary sources that are proposed at the reservation, and as noted above, air pollution control considerations are simply one of many considerations that businesses take into account when deciding to develop at a given site. Without such evidence, the EPA declines to speculate on the types or number of new stationary sources that might locate at the reservation over the next ten years (or their associated emissions and downwind impacts) on account of the change in air pollution control requirements ( i.e., higher major source threshold for NNSR). Furthermore, any new stationary sources would be subject to the EPA's review under the Indian country minor NSR rules, 17
the Indian country NNSR rules, or the PSD regulation. All three programs provide for control technology review and air quality impacts analysis, and thus, we can reasonably rely on such review to ensure that emission 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.
Response to SCAQMD Comment #4: CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is one of five statutory criteria that the EPA must use to evaluate requests for redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment. It precludes such redesignation unless the EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. (In this context, “applicable implementation plan” refers to the TIP.) As such, the criterion calls for the identification of the measures that provided the emissions reductions that resulted in corresponding reductions in ambient concentrations such that, where the standard was once violated, the standard is now attained. The evaluation under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) also involves a determination that the improvement in air quality is not due to temporary reductions in emission rates due to temporary adverse economic conditions or unusually favorable meteorology. 18
The purpose of the criterion is to ensure the permanence and enforceability of reductions that have provided for improved air quality and attainment of the standard. The statute does not qualify the phrase “other permanent and enforceable reductions” with a reference to those reductions that are in effect in the area, and thus, it does not matter whether the measures responsible for attainment are in effect in the area for which a redesignation request is being evaluated but only that they are permanent and enforceable. 19
For instance, it is common knowledge that states in the Eastern United States rely in part on emissions reductions from measures adopted by upwind states in attaining the standard. The degree of reliance differs among the states, of course, but those measures adopted in the upwind states qualify as “other permanent and enforceable reductions” for the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). Given the language of this particular phrase of section 107, reliance on the legislative history for interpretative purposes is not necessary, but the EPA, in response to this comment, did review the relevant legislative history and found no indication of any special meaning or limitation to the phrase “other permanent or enforceable reductions” for the purposes of redesignation. 20
Absent clear legislative history to the contrary, the EPA's interpretation of the statute is reasonable.
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
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 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.
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
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 X for all of the years that were analyzed.
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.
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 X between 2012 and 2025 (see table 2 of the proposed rule), and thus there is a relatively low probably of a future violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard at the Pechanga Reservation. Moreover, any future violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard at the Pechanga Reservation is unlikely to be caused by sources at the reservation given the predominant influence of upwind transport of ozone from upwind metropolitan areas in the South Coast. Therefore, the contingency provisions of the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan include annual review of the ozone data 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.
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 2.5 standard. See page 441 of our proposed rule.
Further, taking into account the minimal emissions associated with activities on the Pechanga Reservation and the corresponding minimal contribution from Pechanga-related emissions sources to regional ozone levels, we concluded that it was appropriate, and consistent with the principles of the Tribal Designations Policy, to give particular weight to the jurisdictional boundaries factor. Under this factor, we consider what the existing jurisdictional boundaries are for the purposes of providing a clearly defined legal boundary of the area pertaining to the designation or boundary change request and carrying out air quality planning and enforcement functions. When the Pechanga Tribe acquired parcels in San Diego County is not germane. 26
What is 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
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 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 2.5 standard. 28
• Are not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );
• Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );
• Are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.
2. Subpart L of part 49 is amended by adding an undesignated center heading and § 49.5514 to read as follows:
§ 49.5514
Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation Nonattainment Area (May 2014)
[INSERT Federal Register CITATION April 3, 2015
Tribal redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin, CA: d
Subpart 2/Extreme.
Riverside County (part)
San Bernardino County (part)
Pechanga Reservation c
San Diego County (part) f
That portion of San Diego County that excludes the areas listed below: La Posta Areas #1 and #2, b Cuyapaipe Area, b Manzanita Area, b Campo Areas #1 and #2 b
La Posta Areas #1 and #2 b
Cuyapaipe Area b
Manzanita Area b
Campo Areas #1 and #2 b
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.