[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18120-18133]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07534]

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

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

Table of Contents

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

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On January 6, 2015 (80 FR 436), under section 107(d)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA proposed to revise the
boundaries of the South Coast \1\ and San Diego County air quality
planning areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone \2\ national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') to designate the Pechanga
Reservation \3\ as a separate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard.\4\ We proposed to do so based on our conclusion that
factors such as air quality data, meteorology, and topography do not
definitively support inclusion of the reservation in either the South
Coast or the San Diego County air quality planning areas, that
emissions sources at the Pechanga Reservation contribute minimally to
regional ozone concentrations, and that the jurisdictional boundaries
factor should be given particular weight under these circumstances.\5\
Once this action is effective, the Pechanga air quality planning area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will have the same boundaries as the
Pechanga nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard and the 2012
annual PM2.5 standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County. See 40 CFR 81.305.
    \2\ Ground-level ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight.
These precursor emissions are emitted by many types of pollution
sources, including stationary sources such as power plants and
industrial emissions sources, mobile sources such as on-road and
nonroad motor vehicles and engines, and smaller sources that are
collectively referred to as ``area sources.''
    \3\ The Pechanga Band of 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 (PM2.5) 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

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 NOX.
    In our proposed rule, we also explained that, in concluding that it
is appropriate to propose approval of the Tribe's request for boundary
changes and designation to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, the EPA relies heavily on the fact that this is a request
from a federally-recognized tribal government. The Pechanga Tribe has
been determined previously to qualify for treatment in the same manner
as a state (also referred to as ``TAS'') for purposes of CAA section
107(d) and sections 110 and 175A and the submitted maintenance plan,
and the lands under consideration here are subject to the EPA's Tribal
Designation Policy. The EPA finds that the Tribe's request for a
separate area is consistent with the principles set forth in that
policy.
    The EPA also explained in the proposed rule that our proposed
action relies on the facts that there are valid monitoring data showing
that current air quality at the Pechanga Reservation meets the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard and that the emissions from sources on the Pechanga
Reservation are minimal and do not contribute in any meaningful way to
ambient concentrations in any nearby ozone nonattainment area. Finally,
we noted that the action to establish a separate air quality planning
area would simplify implementation of the ozone standards by
eliminating the division of the reservation into two different planning
areas for the same criteria pollutant standard, the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. This separate treatment of the Pechanga Reservation is
consistent with the EPA's prior final actions to reclassify the South
Coast ozone nonattainment area in 2010, to establish a separate air
quality planning area for the 2008 ozone standard in 2012, and to
establish a separate air quality planning area for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 standard in 2015. In summary, we noted in our proposed
rule that the proposed changes in the boundaries and the status of this
area are supported by several unique factors that are unlikely to be
present in other nonattainment areas.
    Please see our proposed rule and related technical support document
(TSD) for additional background information about the Pechanga
Reservation, the regulatory context, the Tribe's request for a boundary
change, and the Tribe's redesignation request, as well as a more
detailed explanation of our rationale for the proposed actions.

II. Comments and Responses

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

    \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.

    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

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 NOX) through the
maintenance period. See table 2 of our proposed rule at 80 FR 447.
Generally, maintenance plans can demonstrate maintenance of the
standard by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the standard.\13\ In the proposed rule, we
agree that the downward trend in regional emissions of ozone precursors
is sufficient to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard through 2025. We also note, however, that modeling results
published by the SCAQMD is consistent with our approval of the
maintenance demonstration in the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 NOX due to this action, will create a significant
competitive advantage and attract development beyond that anticipated
in the maintenance plan. Further, the SCAQMD further contends that such
unanticipated growth could result in higher-than-expected emissions
with the potential to adversely affect ozone air quality downwind of
the reservation.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #3: We do not agree with the SCAQMD's
assertions. First, in our proposed rule, we indicate that EPA's
regulations governing review and permitting of new or modified
stationary sources in Indian country \15\ (i.e., ``New Source Review''
or NSR) apply to the Pechanga Reservation. See 80 FR at 443 and 444.
These regulations include the EPA's Indian country minor NSR program,
codified at 40 CFR 49.151 through 49.161, and the Indian country major
NSR program for nonattainment areas (referred to as ``nonattainment
NSR'' or ``NNSR''), codified at 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173. The EPA's
regulations for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD),
codified at 40 CFR 52.21, also apply to any new major source or major
modification proposed at the Pechanga Reservation except for

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 NOX will no longer be
subject to the LAER and emissions offset requirements that otherwise
would have applied under the EPA's Indian country major source NNSR
rule but instead will be subject to the control technology review
described above for new or modified minor sources under the EPA's
Indian country minor NSR rule. However, applicable air pollution
regulations and requirements are but one of many factors that influence
business development decisions and we do not have information that
supports a conclusion that the Pechanga Reservation will attract new
development at such a rate as to result in emissions growth beyond that
anticipated in the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan.
    Fourth, the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan projects that current
stationary source emissions at the Pechanga Reservation will increase
33 percent for NOX over the same period.\16\ The basic
assumption used to develop these projections is that, over the next ten
years, the Pechanga Resort and Casino would experience steady growth
that would lead to increased NOX emissions by sources such
as the existing boilers due to greater usage rates. We believe that the
plan's assumption that, over the next ten years, changes in emissions
at the reservation will stem from expansion of the existing resort and
casino, rather than from development of new types of commercial or
industrial businesses, is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Pechanga Ozone Maintenance Plan predicts an increase in
NOX emissions from stationary sources; however, the plan
predicts that overall emissions associated with the reservation
would decline due to offsetting reductions in mobile source
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \17\ Certain low-emitting new sources are exempt from permitting
under the EPA's Indian country minor NSR program. Specifically,
given the continued status of the Pechanga Reservation as a
``nonattainment'' area for the 2008 ozone standard, notwithstanding
today's action to redesignate the reservation as ``attainment'' for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the applicable minor source
exemption thresholds are 2 tpy for VOC and 5 tpy of NOX.
See 40 CFR 49.153 (table 1 to 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

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 NOX for all of the years that were analyzed.
    SCAQMD Comment #6: The SCAQMD states that the EPA fails to explain
its legal theory that would allow the Tribe to fail to identify
specific contingency measures in its maintenance plan.
    Response to SCAQMD Comment #6: CAA section 175A(d) requires that
maintenance plans contain such contingency provisions as the EPA deems
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation
of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an
attainment area. Such provisions shall include a requirement that the
State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the
air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the area
before redesignation of the area as an attainment area. In this
context, the reference to ``State'' and ``SIP'' in CAA section 175A
corresponds to ``Tribe'' and ``TIP.''
    Generally, the EPA believes that, to meet the requirements of CAA
section 175A(d), contingency provisions of maintenance plans should
identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by
the State.\24\ However, the CAA does not require that specific
contingency measures be identified other than those measures that were
part of the control strategy that a State or Tribe relied on to attain
the standard but is not relying on for maintenance of the standard and
is no longer retaining as an active measure in the SIP or TIP. No such
measures exist for the Pechanga Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 NOX between 2012
and 2025 (see table 2 of the proposed rule), and thus there is a
relatively low probably of a future

violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard at the Pechanga
Reservation. Moreover, any future violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard at the Pechanga Reservation is unlikely to be caused by
sources at the reservation given the predominant influence of upwind
transport of ozone from upwind metropolitan areas in the South Coast.
Therefore, the contingency provisions of the Pechanga Ozone Maintenance
Plan include annual review of the ozone data 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 PM2.5 standard. See page 441 of our proposed rule.
    Further, taking into account the minimal emissions associated with
activities on the Pechanga Reservation and the corresponding minimal
contribution from Pechanga-related emissions sources to regional ozone
levels, we concluded that it was appropriate, and consistent with the
principles of the Tribal Designations Policy, to give particular weight
to the jurisdictional boundaries factor. Under this factor, we consider
what the existing jurisdictional boundaries are for the purposes of
providing a clearly defined legal boundary of the area pertaining to
the designation or boundary change request and carrying out air quality
planning and enforcement functions. When the Pechanga Tribe acquired
parcels in San Diego County is not germane.\26\ What is

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 (PM2.5) standard. See 80 FR
2206, at 2225 (January 15, 2015). As such, we will also be aligning
the ozone air quality planning area with the 2012 annual
PM2.5 air quality planning area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

jurisdictional boundaries factor should be given particular weight
under these circumstances. As a result of our final action, the
Pechanga Reservation air quality planning area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard has the same boundaries as the Pechanga Reservation
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard and the 2012 annual
PM2.5 standard.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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.

        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.

        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.

\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