Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 51-59 [2012-31537]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
.02(9)(b)—Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA has
made the preliminary determination
that this SIP revision, with regard to the
aforementioned proposed actions, is
approvable because it is consistent with
section 110 of the CAA and EPA
regulations regarding NSR permitting.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP 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 SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is 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);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is 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.);
• Does 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is 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
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 18, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–31538 Filed 12–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0936; FRL–9767–4]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; California;
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to correct an
error in a previous rulemaking that
revised the boundaries between
nonattainment areas in Southern
California established under the Clean
Air Act for the purposes of addressing
the revoked national ambient air quality
standard for one-hour ozone. EPA is
also proposing to revise the boundaries
of certain Southern California air quality
planning areas to designate the Indian
country of the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians, California (Morongo
Reservation) as a separate air quality
planning area for the one-hour and 1997
eight-hour ozone standards.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before February 1, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0936, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: israels.ken@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 415–947–3579.
4. Mail or deliver: Ken Israels
(Mailcode AIR–8), U.S. Environmental
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through the
https://www.regulations.gov or email;
https://www.regulations.gov is an
anonymous access system, and EPA will
not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send
email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the public
comment. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://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., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed directly
below.
Ken
Israels, Grants and Program Integration
Office (AIR–8), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, (415)
947–4102, israels.ken@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ ‘‘our,’’ and ‘‘Agency’’ refer
to EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Banning Pass and the Morongo Band of
Mission Indians
B. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
C. Area Designations and Classifications
II. Proposed Action
A. Legal Authority
B. Proposed Correction to 2003 Action
C. Proposed Boundary Redesignation of the
Morongo Reservation as a Separate
Nonattainment Area for the One-Hour
Ozone and Eight-Hour Ozone Standards
III. Summary of Proposed Action and Request
for Public Comment
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
52
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
A. Banning Pass and the Morongo Band
of Mission Indians
Connecting the South Coast Air Basin
to the Coachella Valley, the Banning
Pass (also known as the San Gorgonio
Pass) is one of the three major routes by
which air pollutants are transported out
of the Los Angeles metropolitan area
(which lies within the South Coast Air
Basin). Banning Pass runs in an eastwest direction for about 15 miles and is
about 5 miles wide. The pass starts west
of Beaumont, California at an elevation
of about 2,200 feet and reaches a
maximum elevation of around 2,600 feet
in the city of Beaumont, then drops to
an elevation of near 1,400 feet between
Cabazon and White Water. The San
Bernardino Mountains are on the north
side of the pass and the San Jacinto
Mountains are on the south side. The
San Bernardino Mountains reach a
maximum elevation of approximately
11,500 feet at the top of San Gorgonio
Mountain and the San Jacinto
Mountains reach a maximum elevation
of approximately 10,800 feet at Mt. San
Jacinto.
The Morongo Band of Mission
Indians, California (‘‘Morongo Tribe’’ or
‘‘Tribe’’) is a federally-recognized Indian
tribe whose Indian country 1 (‘‘Morongo
Reservation’’ or ‘‘Reservation’’) lies
within the Banning Pass. The Morongo
Reservation covers approximately
35,000 acres and is home to
approximately 1,500 full-time
residents.2 The Morongo Reservation is
rural, and most of the current land use
is residential or agricultural. The
Morongo Reservation also hosts a hotel
and casino, among other enterprises.
The eastern edge of the Morongo
Reservation abuts the current boundary
between the South Coast Air Basin and
Southeast Desert/Coachella Valley air
planning areas. Most of the Morongo
1 ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151
refers to: ‘‘(a) All land within the limits of any
Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way
running through the reservation, (b) all dependent
Indian communities within the borders of the
United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and
whether within or without the limits of a state, and
(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which
have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way
running through the same.’’ The Morongo Tribe is
the only Tribe that has Indian country in the
portion of the Banning Pass at issue in this
rulemaking.
2 See EPA’s 2008 eight-hour ozone standard
designations Technical Support Document (TSD)
found at https://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/
designations/2008standards/documents/
R9_CA_TSD_FINAL.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
Reservation is located north of Interstate
10, just east of the City of Banning, but
some of the Reservation is located south
of Interstate 10 as well.
B. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’)
requires EPA to establish a National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS
or ‘‘standard’’) for pollutants that ‘‘may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare’’ and to
develop a primary and secondary
standard for each NAAQS. The primary
standard is designed to protect human
health with an adequate margin of safety
and the secondary standard is designed
to protect public welfare and the
environment. EPA has set NAAQS for
six common air pollutants, referred to as
criteria pollutants: Ozone, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, and lead.
In 1979, EPA promulgated the first
ozone 3 standard of 0.12 parts per
million (ppm), averaged over a one-hour
period (‘‘one-hour ozone standard’’), to
replace an earlier photochemical
oxidant standard. In 1997, EPA revised
the ozone standard to 0.08 ppm, eighthour average (‘‘1997 eight-hour ozone
standard’’), and then, in 2008, lowered
the eight-hour ozone standard to 0.075
ppm (‘‘2008 ozone standard’’). Today’s
proposed action relates only to the
designations and classifications for the
one-hour ozone and 1997 eight-hour
ozone standards, discussed below, but
relies on EPA’s analysis and rationale
for the Agency’s recent designations for
the 2008 ozone standard.
C. Area Designations and Classifications
Areas of the country were originally
designated as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable
following enactment of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA. See 43 FR
8962 (March 3, 1978). These
designations were generally based on
monitored air quality values compared
to the applicable standard. Under the
1990 Amendments to the CAA, ozone
nonattainment areas were further
classified as ‘‘Marginal,’’ ‘‘Moderate,’’
‘‘Serious,’’ ‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’
depending upon the severity of the
ozone problem. Area designations and
classifications are codified in 40 CFR
part 81; area designations and
3 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 power plants and industrial emissions
sources, on-road and off-road motor vehicles and
engines, and smaller sources, collectively referred
to as area sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
classifications for California are codified
at 40 CFR 81.305.
EPA has historically designated areas
in Southern California by referencing air
basins, including the South Coast Air
Basin 4 and the Southeast Desert Air
Basin. More recently, the EPA has
recognized California’s division of the
former Southeast Desert Air Basin into
the Mojave Desert Air Basin and the
Salton Sea Air Basin. The relevant
portion of the Southeast Desert Air
Basin (and Salton Sea Air Basin) for the
purposes of this proposed action is
Coachella Valley, which covers roughly
the middle third of Riverside County,
i.e., east of the South Coast Air Basin
and west of the Little San Bernardino
Mountains.
Historically, the Morongo Reservation
was included in the Coachella Valley
portion of the Southeast Desert Air
Basin and was designated accordingly
for the various standards. In 2002, the
State of California requested that EPA
revise the boundaries of the South Coast
Air Basin and the Southeast Desert Air
Basin to remove the Banning Pass area
from the Coachella Valley portion of the
Southeast Desert Air Basin and include
it in the South Coast Air Basin. See 68
FR 57820 (October 7, 2003).5
Specifically, California sought to
establish a new boundary approximately
18 miles east of the then-established
boundary between the South Coast Air
Basin and the Coachella Valley portion
of the Southeast Desert Air Basin. The
boundary between the two basins was to
be moved from the range line common
to Range 2 West and Range 1 West to the
range line common to Range 2 East and
Range 3 East (San Bernardino Base and
4 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).
5 California also requested two other specific
boundary changes: (1) To move the eastern
boundary of the Coachella Valley portion of the
Southeast Desert ozone nonattainment area further
east to match the boundaries of the Coachella
Valley PM–10 nonattainment area, and (2) to correct
an error in the eastern boundary of the San
Bernardino County portion of the South Coast Air
Basin with respect to carbon monoxide. Unlike the
boundary change to enlarge the South Coast to
include the entire Banning Pass area, the change in
the eastern boundary of the Coachella Valley
portion of the Southeast Desert ozone
nonattainment area did not affect Indian country
and would not be affected by today’s proposed
action. The approval of the State’s request to correct
the carbon monoxide boundary simply fixed a
typographical error and thereby removed from the
South Coast carbon monoxide nonattainment area
a portion of San Bernardino County that neither
EPA nor California intended to be included. See 68
FR 48848, at 48850 (August 15, 2003). EPA’s
correction of the carbon monoxide boundary in San
Bernardino County would also be unaffected by
today’s proposed action.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Meridian).6 On October 7, 2003, EPA
approved California’s boundary change
request (68 FR 57820).
With respect to the one-hour ozone
standard, EPA’s 2003 action had the
effect of moving the Morongo
Reservation from the Coachella Valley
portion of the ‘‘Southeast Desert
Modified AQMA Area’’ (‘‘Southeast
Desert’’) to the South Coast Air Basin
and changing the designations and
classifications accordingly. Specifically,
EPA’s 2003 action had the effect of
changing the ozone nonattainment area
classification for the Banning Pass area,
including the Morongo Reservation,
from ‘‘Severe-17’’ to ‘‘Extreme’’.7
In 2004, EPA promulgated area
designations and classifications for the
1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Among
the California areas, EPA designated the
‘‘Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin,
CA,’’ the boundary of which coincided
with the boundary for the one-hour
ozone standard, as amended in 2003 to
include the entire Banning Pass,
including the Morongo Reservation, as a
‘‘Severe-17’’ nonattainment area. See 69
FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). In EPA’s
2004 final rule, the Agency designated
‘‘Riverside Co. (Coachella Valley), CA’’
(‘‘Coachella Valley’’) as a ‘‘Serious’’
nonattainment area. In 2007, the State of
California requested that EPA reclassify
the South Coast nonattainment area
from ‘‘Severe-17’’ to ‘‘Extreme’’ and the
Coachella Valley nonattainment area
from ‘‘Serious’’ to ‘‘Severe-15’’ for the
1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
In response to EPA’s 2003 boundary
change action and California’s 2007
reclassification request, the Morongo
Tribe requested that EPA create a
separate nonattainment area for the
Morongo Reservation or, alternatively,
move the western boundary of the
Coachella Valley area westward to
include the Morongo Reservation. See
6 For a detailed map of the area, please see the
technical support document (TSD) for this proposed
rulemaking available in the docket for this action,
EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0936.
7 For carbon monoxide, EPA’s action had the
effect of changing the designation of the Banning
Pass area from ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ to
‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment. With respect to
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(‘‘PM10’’), the action did not change the designation
or classification of the Banning Pass because both
the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley are
‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment areas for that pollutant.
Both the South Coast and Coachella Valley are
designated as unclassifiable or attainment for the
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide standards, but,
for nitrogen dioxide, the South Coast Air Basin is
a former nonattainment area for which a
maintenance plan has been approved. See 63 FR
39747 (July 24, 1998). Today’s proposed action
relates only to the designations and classifications
for the one-hour ozone and 1997 eight-hour ozone
standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
letter from Robert Martin, Chairman,
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, to
Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division,
EPA Region IX, dated May 29, 2009.
In 2009, in response to California’s
2007 reclassification request, EPA
proposed that all Indian country in the
South Coast be reclassified in keeping
with the classification of non-Indian
country State lands to ‘‘Extreme’’ for the
1997 eight-hour ozone standard. See 43
FR 43654 (August 27, 2009). In 2010,
EPA took final action granting the
request by California to reclassify the
South Coast Air Basin from ‘‘Severe-17’’
to ‘‘Extreme’’ for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard, and to reclassify all
Indian country, except that pertaining to
the Morongo Tribe and the Pechanga
Tribe, in keeping with the
reclassification of non-Indian country
State lands to ‘‘Extreme.’’ With respect
to the Morongo Tribe and the Pechanga
Tribe, EPA deferred reclassification
pending EPA’s final decisions on their
previously-submitted boundary change
requests. See 75 FR 24409 (May 5,
2010). In EPA’s 2010 final rule, the
Agency also granted the request to
reclassify the Coachella Valley
nonattainment area to ‘‘Severe-15.’’
Today’s proposed action would
correct EPA’s 2003 action to the extent
that the action relates to the
designations and classifications of the
Morongo Reservation for the one-hour
ozone standard and would establish a
separate one-hour ozone nonattainment
area for the Reservation. Today’s
proposed action would also grant the
Tribe’s request to revise the boundary
designation and to designate the
Morongo Reservation as a separate
nonattainment area for the 1997 eighthour ozone standard.8
Today’s proposed action would not
affect the current designations and
classifications of the Morongo
Reservation for any of the other
standards. Today’s proposed action
would also not affect the designations
and classifications for any pollutant
with respect to State lands.
II. Proposed Action
A. Legal Authority
The relevant statutory provisions for
this proposed action are CAA section
110(k)(6), which is EPA’s error
correction authority, and CAA sections
8 If we finalize our proposed action to revise the
boundaries of the South Coast to designate the
Morongo Reservation as a separate nonattainment
area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, EPA
will withdraw our proposed rule to reclassify
Indian country in the South Coast to ‘‘Extreme’’ for
the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard (74 FR 43654,
August 27, 2009) to the extent that the 2009
proposed rule relates to the Morongo Reservation.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53
107(d)(3), 301(a) and 301(d), which are
EPA’s authority to redesignate Indian
country areas under these
circumstances.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA
provides: ‘‘Whenever the Administrator
determines that the Administrator’s
action approving, disapproving, or
promulgating any plan or plan revision
(or part thereof), area designation,
redesignation, classification, or
reclassification was in error, the
Administrator may in the same manner
as the approval, disapproval, or
promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any
further submission from the State. Such
determination and the basis thereof
shall be provided to the State and
public.’’ We interpret this provision to
authorize the Agency to make
corrections to a promulgated regulation
when it is shown to our satisfaction that
(1) we clearly erred in failing to
consider or inappropriately considering
information made available to EPA at
the time of the promulgation, or the
information made available at the time
of promulgation is subsequently
demonstrated to have been clearly
inadequate, and (2) other information
persuasively supports a change in the
regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763
(November 30, 1992).
Sections 107(d)(3)(A)–(C) provide that
EPA may initiate the redesignation
process ‘‘on the basis of air quality data,
planning and control considerations, or
any other air quality-related
considerations the Administrator deems
appropriate,’’ and ‘‘promulgate the
redesignation, if any, of the area or
portion thereof.’’ CAA section 107(d)(3)
does not refer to Indian country, but
consistent with EPA’s discretionary
authority in CAA sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4) to directly administer CAA
programs, and protect air quality in
Indian country through federal
implementation, EPA is authorized to
directly administer sections
107(d)(3)(A)–(C) and redesignate Indian
country areas.9
9 Revisions of designations are referred to as
‘‘redesignations.’’ Boundary changes revise an
area’s designation and, as such, represent one type
of redesignation. As a general matter, EPA is no
longer acting to redesignate areas with respect to
the revoked one-hour ozone standard. However, in
this instance, EPA is proposing to revise the
designation of an air quality planning area in
concert with a proposal to correct a clear error that
occurred with respect to Indian country prior to
revocation of the one-hour ozone standard. As
indicated in this document, EPA believes that
correction of this error is justified by the specific
jurisdictional context and the on-going regulatory
impacts on the Morongo Tribe arising from the
error.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
54
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
We have reviewed the materials
submitted by the State of California in
connection with the State’s 2002 request
to enlarge the South Coast Air Basin to
include the Banning Pass area, thereby
removing the area from the Southeast
Desert. We have also reviewed EPA’s
rationale for approving the State’s
request. On the basis of that review, and
for reasons given below, EPA has
concluded that while EPA’s action to
approve California’s request was not
erroneous with respect to state lands, it
was erroneous with respect to the
Morongo Reservation and that we have
sufficient justification to correct the
error at this time.
First, a review of the items listed in
EPA’s administrative record for EPA’s
proposed (68 FR 48848, August 15,
2003) and final (68 FR 57820, October
7, 2003) rules approving California’s
boundary change request reveals no
reference to, or map illustrating the
location of, the Morongo Reservation.
Second, from review of the record, it
is clear that EPA understood its action
as one in which the Agency was taking
action on a State request under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(D). See, e.g., the
proposed rule at 48850 (‘‘* * * we are
proposing to fully approve [the requests]
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D).’’).
Section 107(d)(3)(D) provides: ‘‘The
Governor of any State may, on the
Governor’s own motion, submit to the
Administrator a revised designation of
any area or portion thereof within the
State.’’ Typically, however, states are
not approved to administer programs
under the CAA in Indian country, and
California has not been approved by
EPA to administer any CAA programs in
Indian country. CAA actions in Indian
country would thus generally be taken
either by EPA, or by an eligible Indian
tribe itself under an EPA-approved
program. In this case, the Morongo Tribe
has not applied under CAA section
301(d) for treatment-in-a-similarmanner-as-a-state (TAS) for purposes of
designations and redesignations under
section 107(d) and does not implement
any relevant EPA-approved CAA
regulatory program, nor has the tribe
developed a tribal implementation plan
(TIP).10 In these circumstances, EPA is
the appropriate entity to administer
relevant CAA programs in Indian
country.
Thus, with respect to the Indian
country located within an area subject
to a State boundary change request, EPA
is the appropriate entity to initiate and
promulgate the redesignation, and EPA
could do so under CAA sections
107(d)(3)(A)–(C) and sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4), as discussed above in
subsection II.A (‘‘Legal Authority’’).
While EPA thus had authority to change
the boundary of the South Coast Air
Basin with respect to Indian country, it
is apparent from the proposed and final
rules in 2003 that EPA did not recognize
that it was acting under that authority
or appropriately consider the effect of
the action on Indian country lands. EPA
recognized only that the Agency was
acting on a State request under section
107(d)(3)(D) and reviewed the request
accordingly. As noted previously, states
are not approved to administer CAA
programs in Indian country.11
If EPA’s actions had more explicitly
addressed the fact that the State’s
request affected tribal lands, and also
had expressly considered the Tribe’s
position with respect to the State’s
request to revise the boundary in
relation to Indian country, EPA might
well have relied upon the same criteria
cited in the proposed rule. The criteria,
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(A) include
‘‘air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations the Administrator
deems appropriate’’. The evaluation of
‘‘planning and control considerations’’
for Indian country, however, differs
from that for State lands. In this
instance, with respect to State lands, the
South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) has planning and
permitting responsibility over the entire
Banning Pass area, as well as the South
Coast, and Coachella Valley, and
administers an EPA-approved
(nonattainment) New Source Review
(NSR) program under which permits
may be issued to new or modified
stationary sources.
In contrast, EPA currently administers
relevant CAA programs on the Morongo
Reservation. Until recently, EPA had not
established a NSR program applicable to
the Reservation. This means that a
higher ozone classification, and
simultaneous lowering (i.e., more
stringent) of NSR major source
thresholds, would have presented a
greater challenge for new and modified
stationary sources at the Morongo
Reservation than for similar sources on
10 In addition, the CAA does not require Indian
tribes to develop and seek approval of air programs,
and pursuant to our authority in CAA section
301(d), EPA has interpreted relevant CAA
requirements for submission of air programs as not
applying to tribes. See 40 CFR 49.4.
11 EPA is not excluding the possibility that Tribes
can agree with State requests in certain
circumstances, nor are we suggesting that we would
undo actions we took just because we did not
explicitly identify Indian country land that was
included with the State land.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
B. Proposed Correction to 2003 Action
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
State lands in the Banning Pass subject
to SCAQMD’s EPA-approved NSR
program. (EPA’s NSR rule for Indian
country, including the Morongo
Reservation, was published on July 1,
2011 at 76 FR 38748 and took effect on
August 30, 2011.)
Moreover, state law and SCAQMD
rules restrict the use of emission
reduction credits generated under
SCAQMD rules by major new or
modified sources located within the
South Coast Air Basin, but outside the
scope of the SCAQMD program. See
SCAQMD Rule 1309 (‘‘Emission
Reduction Credits’’), subsection (h)(3);
and California Health & Safety Code
section 40709.6 (‘‘Offset by reductions
credited to stationary sources located in
another district’’). Given the few
emissions sources on the Morongo
Reservation, reliance upon emissions
reductions by sources off the
Reservation to offset emissions from any
major new or modified sources on the
Reservation is inevitable and because of
the limitations in state law and
SCAQMD rules, the availability of such
emissions reductions is uncertain.
Therefore, as described above, in the
specific circumstances presented here,
and based on our review of the record
from the 2003 rulemaking, we conclude
that EPA erred in including the
Morongo Reservation in the 2003
boundary change approval. Because
Indian country was subsumed into a
larger area for which the State requested
a boundary revision, EPA should not
have acted solely with respect to the
State’s request under section
107(d)(3)(D), but should have fulfilled
its responsibilities pursuant to section
107(d)(3)(A)–(C), and sections 301(a)
and 301(d) and considered the relevant
criteria from the perspective of Indian
country.
Furthermore, we recognize that the
boundary change has had adverse
regulatory impacts on the Morongo
Tribe, particularly by lowering the onehour ozone NSR major source threshold
from 25 tons per year to 10 tons per
year. This adverse regulatory impact
continues to affect the Tribe, even
though the one-hour ozone standard
was revoked, effective on June 15, 2005
[i.e., one year from the designations for
the eight-hour ozone standard—see 40
CFR 50.9(b)].
With respect to the one-hour ozone
standard and the related NSR major
source thresholds, the Tribe continues
to be affected because, in the wake of a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit challenging EPA’s
Phase I Implementation Rule for the
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
eight-hour ozone standard,12 the NSR
requirements that had applied by virtue
of the area’s classification as of June 15,
2004 continue to apply under antibacksliding requirements established by
EPA for the transition from the one-hour
ozone standard to the eight-hour ozone
standard. See 77 FR 28424 (May 14,
2012) for information concerning the
NSR requirement and the antibacksliding provisions for the former
one-hour ozone standard. Thus,
notwithstanding the revocation of the
one-hour ozone standard, the applicable
major source NSR thresholds for the
Morongo Reservation continue to be 10
tons per year, based on the inclusion of
the Reservation in the South Coast
because the South Coast was classified
as ‘‘Extreme’’ for the one-hour ozone
standard on June 15, 2004.
In sum, given the on-going effects that
flow from our 2003 error, we are
persuaded to propose action now to
correct the error in our 2003 boundary
change action as it relates to the
Morongo Reservation.
In considering how to correct the
error in our 2003 boundary change
action, we have concluded from our
review of the administrative record for
that rulemaking that EPA did not
commit an error with respect to State
lands. Our proposed action addresses
only the specific regulatory impact on
the Morongo Reservation, and otherwise
leaves the 2003 action unchanged. Thus,
we propose to rescind the 2003
boundary change rule only with respect
to the Morongo Reservation for the
revoked one-hour ozone standard.
Revocation of the 2003 boundary
change rule with respect to the Morongo
Reservation would return it to its status
before the 2003 boundary change, when
the Reservation was included in the
Southeast Desert one-hour ozone
nonattainment area. (see section I.C.
herein). In this action, however, EPA is
taking the additional step of proposing
to revise the boundaries of the Southeast
Desert to designate the Morongo
Reservation as a separate one-hour
ozone nonattainment area. If both
proposed actions are finalized, the
Morongo Reservation would resume the
one-hour ozone nonattainment
classification it previously shared with
the Southeast Desert (i.e., ‘‘Severe-17’’).
We are not proposing to rescind the
2003 action with respect to area
designations for any of the other
standards, because the Tribe has not
faced any significant adverse regulatory
12 South
Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) reh’g denied 489
F.3d 1245 (clarifying that the vacatur was limited
to the issues on which the court granted the
petitions for review).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
impacts from the boundary change with
respect to those pollutants. Our
proposed action would not affect any
area designations or classifications with
respect to State lands.
C. Proposed Boundary Redesignation of
the Morongo Reservation as a Separate
Nonattainment Area for the One-Hour
Ozone and 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone
Standards
As noted previously, on May 29,
2009, the Morongo Tribe submitted a
request to EPA for a boundary change to
create a separate ozone nonattainment
area, or in the alternative, to move the
western boundary of the Coachella
Valley nonattainment area westward to
include the Morongo Reservation. As
noted above, we are authorized to
redesignate Indian country areas under
these circumstances under CAA
sections 107(d)(3)(A)–(C), 301(a) and
301(d).
Recently, EPA issued a policy
(referred to herein as the ‘‘Tribal
Designation Policy’’) for establishing
separate air quality designations for
areas of Indian country.13 Where EPA
receives a request for a boundary change
from a tribe seeking to have its Indian
country designated as a separate area,
the policy indicates that EPA will make
decisions regarding these requests on a
case-by-case basis after consultation
with the tribe. As a matter of policy,
EPA believes that it is important for
tribes to submit the following
information when requesting a
boundary change: A formal request from
an authorized tribal official;
documentation of Indian country
boundaries to which the air quality
designation request applies;
concurrence with EPA’s intent to
include the identified tribal lands in the
40 CFR part 81 table should EPA
separately designate the area; and a
multi-factor analysis to support the
request. See Tribal Designation Policy,
pages 3 and 4.
The Tribal Designation Policy states
that EPA intends to make decisions
regarding a tribe’s request for a separate
air quality designation after all
necessary consultation with the tribe
and, as appropriate, with the
involvement of other affected entities,
and after evaluating whether there is
sufficient information to support such a
designation. Boundary change requests
for a separate air quality designation
should include an analysis of a number
13 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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55
of factors (referred to as a ‘‘multi-factor
analysis,’’) including air quality data,
emissions-related data (including source
emissions data, traffic and commuting
patterns, population density and degree
of urbanization), meteorology,
geography/topography, and
jurisdictional boundaries.14 EPA
believes these factors are appropriate to
consider in acting under CAA sections
107(d)(3)(A)–(C), 301(a) and 301(d).
On May 29, 2009, the Chairman of the
Morongo Tribe submitted the Tribe’s
request for a separate ozone
nonattainment area that included a
multi-factor analysis addressing air
quality data, emissions data,
meteorology, geography/topography,
and jurisdictional boundaries. As such,
although submitted prior to release of
the Tribal Designation Policy, the
Morongo Tribe’s request for a boundary
change to create a separate ozone
nonattainment area, in conjunction with
EPA’s additional analysis found in the
technical support document for this
proposed action, represents the type of
formal, official request and supporting
information called for in the policy.15
EPA recently reviewed the Morongo
Tribe’s multi-factor analysis in
connection with designating areas of the
country for the 2008 ozone standard.
Upon review of the Tribe’s analysis and
EPA’s own supplemental analysis in
light of the Tribal Designation Policy,
EPA designated the Morongo
Reservation as a separate nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone standard. See 77
FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). We believe
that EPA’s analysis and recent decision
to designate the Morongo Reservation as
a separate nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone standard is directly relevant
to our consideration of whether to revise
the boundaries of existing air quality
planning areas to designate the Morongo
Reservation as a separate nonattainment
area for the one-hour and 1997 eighthour ozone standards. We recognize that
the three standards address the same
pollutant, and thus share multi-factor
analyses and considerations.16
EPA is therefore adopting the analysis
and rationale previously relied upon by
EPA in establishing the Morongo
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
14 The Tribal Designation Policy also states that,
in addition to information related to the identified
factors, tribes may submit any other information
that they believe is important for EPA to consider.
15 In addition, EPA has consulted with the tribe
several times about this matter.
16 EPA also notes that in using many of the same
factors found in the 2008 ozone designations
process, we are using factors that represent the most
current information regarding meteorology, air
quality, etc. in the area and therefore we believe
serve the purposes of being representative for the
previously established ozone standards.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
56
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
standard. Key findings from the 2008
ozone designations decision that we are
adopting for this proposed action
include: 17
• Air quality data: The SCAQMD-run
monitor in Banning is located within
two miles of the Morongo monitor, and
data from SCAQMD’s Banning monitor
is appropriate for use as a regulatory
monitor and is representative of air
quality within the Morongo Reservation.
Eight-hour ozone concentrations
measured at the SCAQMD-run Banning
ozone monitor shows continued
violations of the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard and, reflecting the transitional
nature of the Banning Pass area, contrast
with the higher design values of the
South Coast Air Basin to the west and
lower design values in Southeast Desert
to the east; 18
• Emissions data: Sources of air
pollutants located on or associated with
the Morongo Reservation consist of
stationary sources that generate less
than 20 tons per year (tpy) of NOX and
less than 20 tpy of VOC, and motor
vehicles for travel associated with the
1,500 residents and visitors to the
Morongo Casino Resort. In contrast,
ozone precursor emissions from the
adjacent Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin nonattainment area exceed
400,000 tpy of NOX and over 200,000
tpy of VOC, with a total population of
approximately 17 million people.19 To
the east, ozone precursor emissions
from the adjacent Riverside County
(Coachella Valley, which was originally
part of the Southeast Desert Air Basin)
nonattainment area exceed 50,000 tpy of
NOX and 28,000 tpy of VOC, with a
population of over 2 million people; 20
• Meteorology: Under most
meteorological conditions, air from the
coastal plain (i.e., South Coast) to the
west is funneled through Banning Pass
to the desert area to the east. As a
17 See the TSD associated with this proposal for
our detailed analysis of each of the factors. Our TSD
also shows that violations continue for the one-hour
standard and that the transitional characteristic
observed for the eight-hour ozone data also applies
to the one-hour ozone data.
18 In performing our analysis, EPA relied on data
from the following monitoring stations in our air
quality system (AQS): Redlands (AQS #06–071–
4003), Banning (AQS #06–065–0012), and Palm
Springs (AQS #06–065–5001). EPA believes that the
Banning monitor, given its proximity, is
representative of the Morongo Indian Country’s air
quality. EPA also notes that, while the Morongo
Tribe operates its own monitor, we did not use that
data for this action.
19 See page 5 of the Morongo portion of the 2008
eight-hour ozone standard TSD found at https://
www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/designations/
2008standards/documents/R9_CA_TSD_FINAL.pdf
20 See page 6 of the Morongo portion of the 2008
eight-hour ozone standard TSD found at https://
www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/designations/
2008standards/documents/R9_CA_TSD_FINAL.pdf
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
mountain pass area, the meteorology is
dissimilar from that of either the coastal
plain to the west or the desert area to
the east. The winds are more frequent
and stronger, with a more westerly
component, than those in most of the
coastal plain, and the temperatures vary
more than in most of the coastal plain
but not as much as in the desert area to
the east.21 Thus, in some ways, the
Banning Pass is transitional between the
coastal and desert areas; in other ways,
as a mountain pass, the Banning Pass is
simply unlike either area to the west or
east;
• Geography/topography: The
topographical characteristics of the
Banning Pass create very different
climatic conditions than found in the
coastal plain to the west or the desert
area to the east, such as persistently
strong westerly air flow that is
compressed and channeled by the
elevated land mass of the Pass itself and
the steep mountain peaks to the north
and south; and
• Jurisdictional boundaries: Although
the Morongo Reservation contains
stationary and mobile sources of ozone
precursors, the magnitude of ozone
precursor emissions is very small
compared to emissions from the
adjacent Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin and Coachella Valley
nonattainment areas. Because the
analysis of factors does not conclusively
indicate that the sources located on the
Morongo Reservation contribute to
nonattainment in the surrounding area,
EPA believes that consistent with the
principles set forth in the Tribal
Designation Policy, the jurisdictional
boundaries factor is especially
important in the decision-making
process for designating the Morongo
Reservation.
Air quality data, meteorology and
topography indicate that the Morongo
Reservation experiences transitional
conditions characteristic of a mountain
pass area through which pollutants are
channeled from a highly urbanized
metropolitan nonattainment area to the
west to the relatively less developed
nonattainment area to the east.
Considering the three factors of air
quality data, meteorology, and
topography, EPA could reasonably
include the Morongo Reservation in
either the South Coast nonattainment
area to the west, or the Southeast Desert
nonattainment area to the east, as EPA
has done in the past for the one-hour
ozone standard and the 1997 eight-hour
21 Meteorological information for the Morongo
Reservation is from 2005–2009 Weather and Air
Quality Summary, prepared by the Morongo Band
of Mission Indians, Environmental Protection
Department, Tribal Air Program, August 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ozone standard. Alternatively, the
Agency could establish a separate
nonattainment area for the Morongo
Reservation as it did for the 2008 eighthour ozone standard.22
However, taking into account the
minimal amount of emissions associated
with activities on the Morongo
Reservation and corresponding minimal
contribution to regional ozone
violations, we believe that in these
circumstances it is appropriate to assign
particular weight to the jurisdictional
boundaries factor, and it is consistent
with the principles for designations of
Indian country set forth in the Tribal
Designation Policy. Moreover, the Tribe
has invested in the development of its
own air program, including operation of
weather stations and an air monitoring
station, and has expressed interest in
development of its own permitting
program. Under the jurisdictional
boundaries factor, we find that
redesignation of the Morongo
Reservation as a separate ozone
nonattainment area for the one-hour
ozone and 1997 eight-hour ozone
standards would be appropriate.
Therefore, consistent with the
designation of the Morongo Reservation
for the 2008 ozone standard, we propose
to revise the boundaries of the Southeast
Desert one-hour ozone nonattainment
area and the boundaries of the South
Coast 1997 eight-hour ozone
nonattainment area to designate the
Morongo Reservation as a separate
nonattainment area for the one-hour and
1997 eight-hour ozone standards.
III. Summary of Proposed Action and
Request for Public Comment
Under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA,
EPA is proposing to correct an error in
a 2003 final action that revised the
boundaries between areas in Southern
California established under the CAA
for the purposes of addressing the
standard for one-hour ozone. EPA has
determined that the Agency erred in the
2003 final action to change the
boundary of the South Coast Air Basin,
which enlarged the basin to include all
of the Banning Pass area. In taking that
action, EPA failed to consider the
presence of Indian country (i.e., the
Morongo Reservation) located therein.
EPA thus failed to consider the status of
the Indian country under the
appropriate statutory and regulatory
provisions when it evaluated and acted
upon the State’s boundary change
request. EPA believes that its error
resulted in regulatory consequences for
the Morongo Tribe that justify making a
correction.
22 See
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
77 FR 30088, dated May 21, 2012.
02JAP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
rescind the 2003 final action, as it
pertains to the Morongo Reservation for
the one-hour ozone standard. This
proposed action would not affect the
designations and classifications of State
lands.
Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3),
301(a) and 301(d), we propose to revise
the boundaries of the Southeast Desert
to designate the Morongo Reservation as
a separate nonattainment area for the
one-hour ozone standard and to classify
the Morongo Reservation as ‘‘Severe17,’’ i.e., consistent with its prior
classification when it was included in
the Southeast Desert. Third, also under
CAA section 107(d)(3), 301(a) and
301(d), we are proposing to revise the
boundaries of the South Coast to
designate the Morongo Reservation as a
separate nonattainment area for the
1997 eight-hour ozone standard and to
classify the Morongo Reservation as
‘‘Severe-17,’’ i.e., consistent with its
original classification when it was
included in the South Coast.
We are proposing to redesignate the
Morongo Reservation as a separate air
quality planning area for the one-hour
ozone and 1997 eight-hour ozone
standards 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 Southeast Desert air quality
planning areas, that Morongo
Reservation emissions sources
contribute minimally to regional ozone
concentrations, and that the
jurisdictional boundaries factor should
be given particular weight under these
circumstances.
If finalized as proposed, the Morongo
air quality planning area for the onehour and 1997 eight-hour ozone
standards would have the same
boundaries as the Morongo
nonattainment area for the 2008 eighthour ozone standard. Moreover, if
finalized as proposed, new or modified
stationary sources proposed for
construction on the Morongo
Reservation would be subject to the NSR
major source thresholds for ‘‘Severe-17’’
ozone nonattainment areas, rather than
the more stringent thresholds for
‘‘Extreme’’ ozone nonattainment areas.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document
and will accept comments for the next
30 days. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget. For this
reason, this proposed action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action would
merely correct an error in a previous
rulemaking and redesignate certain air
quality planning area boundaries, and
thereby reinstate certain CAA
designations and corresponding
requirements to which the affected area
had previously been subject.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. After considering
the economic impacts of today’s rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule will not
impose any direct requirements on
small entities. EPA is proposing to
correct an error in a previous
rulemaking and redesignate certain air
quality planning area boundaries, and
thereby reinstate certain CAA
designations and corresponding
requirements to which the affected area
had previously been subject. This
proposed action is intended to, among
other purposes, facilitate and support
the Morongo Tribe’s efforts to develop a
tribal air permit program by reestablishing, within the Morongo
Reservation, the less-stringent New
Source Review major source thresholds
that had applied under the area’s
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
58
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
previous ‘‘Severe-17’’ classification for
the one-hour ozone standard.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements. Today’s
proposed rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. The proposed rule
imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. In any event, EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. Thus,
today’s proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ This
proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This proposed action
would merely correct an error in a
previous rulemaking and redesignate
certain air quality planning area
boundaries, and thereby reinstate
certain CAA designations and
corresponding requirements to which
the affected area had previously been
subject, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.’’ Under
section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175,
EPA may not issue a regulation that has
tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
governments, or EPA consults with
tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
Under section 5(c) of Executive Order
13175, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has tribal implications and that
preempts tribal law, unless the Agency
consults with tribal officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
EPA has concluded that this action
would have tribal implications. In 2009,
the Morongo Tribe requested that EPA
create a separate area for the Morongo
Reservation in part due to the adverse
regulatory impacts resulting from the
Agency’s 2003 boundary change action.
EPA consulted with representatives of
the Morongo Tribe prior to, and
following, the Tribe’s 2009 boundary
change request, concerning the issues
covered herein. In today’s proposed
action, EPA is responding to the Tribe’s
2009 boundary change request and has
proposed an action that would eliminate
the adverse regulatory impacts arising
from EPA’s 2003 boundary change
action. As described herein, we agree
with the Tribe that the boundary should
be corrected to reflect their concerns. As
proposed, this action will neither
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor
preempt tribal law. Rather, the proposed
action would relieve the Tribe of the
additional requirements that flowed
from the boundary change and
corresponding change in CAA
designations and classifications. Thus,
the requirements of sections 5(b) and
5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the affected area had previously been
subject.
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this rule present a
disproportionate risk to children.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Ozone,
Wilderness areas.
H. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
proposed rule does not involve
establishment of technical standards,
and thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply to this
action.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
I. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(February 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not directly affect the
level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. In this
action, EPA is proposing to correct an
error in a previous rulemaking and
redesignate certain air quality planning
area boundaries, and thereby reinstate
certain CAA designations and
corresponding requirements to which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Dec 31, 2012
Jkt 229001
Dated: December 20, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012–31537 Filed 12–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2009–0094; 450
003 0115]
RIN 1018–AY64
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing the Honduran
Emerald Hummingbird
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list as endangered the Honduran
emerald hummingbird (Amazilia luciae)
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). This species is
endemic to a small area in Honduras,
and the population is estimated to be
less than 1,000 and decreasing. Its
suitable habitat has decreased in the
past 100 years and continues to
diminish. This document also serves as
the completion of the status review (also
known as the 12-month finding). We
seek information from the public on the
proposed listing for this species.
DATES: We will consider comments and
information received or postmarked on
or before March 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2009–0094.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–
ES–2009–0094, Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept comments by
email or fax. We will post all comments
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Information Requested section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420,
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703–
358–2171. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) requires that, for any petition to
revise the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that
contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the
species may be warranted, we make a
finding within 12 months of the date of
receipt of the petition (‘‘12-month
finding’’). In this finding, we determine
whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned
action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species
are endangered or threatened, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the ESA requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
In this document, we announce that
listing this species as endangered is
warranted, and we are issuing a
proposed rule to add this species as
endangered to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Prior to issuing a final rule on this
proposed action, we will take into
consideration all comments and any
additional information we receive. Such
information may lead to a final rule that
differs from this proposal. All comments
and recommendations, including names
and addresses of commenters, will
become part of the administrative
record.
Petition History
On October 28, 2008, the Service
received a petition dated October 28,
2008, from Mr. David Anderson of
Louisiana State University on behalf of
The Hummingbird Society of Sedona,
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51-59]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0936; FRL-9767-4]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
California; Morongo Band of Mission Indians
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct an error in a previous rulemaking
that revised the boundaries between nonattainment areas in Southern
California established under the Clean Air Act for the purposes of
addressing the revoked national ambient air quality standard for one-
hour ozone. EPA is also proposing to revise the boundaries of certain
Southern California air quality planning areas to designate the Indian
country of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California (Morongo
Reservation) as a separate air quality planning area for the one-hour
and 1997 eight-hour ozone standards.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 1, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0936, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: israels.ken@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 415-947-3579.
4. Mail or deliver: Ken Israels (Mailcode AIR-8), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
https://www.regulations.gov or email; https://www.regulations.gov is an
anonymous access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://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., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Israels, Grants and Program
Integration Office (AIR-8), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, (415) 947-4102, israels.ken@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' ``our,'' and ``Agency'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Banning Pass and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians
B. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
C. Area Designations and Classifications
II. Proposed Action
A. Legal Authority
B. Proposed Correction to 2003 Action
C. Proposed Boundary Redesignation of the Morongo Reservation as
a Separate Nonattainment Area for the One-Hour Ozone and Eight-Hour
Ozone Standards
III. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
[[Page 52]]
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Banning Pass and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Connecting the South Coast Air Basin to the Coachella Valley, the
Banning Pass (also known as the San Gorgonio Pass) is one of the three
major routes by which air pollutants are transported out of the Los
Angeles metropolitan area (which lies within the South Coast Air
Basin). Banning Pass runs in an east-west direction for about 15 miles
and is about 5 miles wide. The pass starts west of Beaumont, California
at an elevation of about 2,200 feet and reaches a maximum elevation of
around 2,600 feet in the city of Beaumont, then drops to an elevation
of near 1,400 feet between Cabazon and White Water. The San Bernardino
Mountains are on the north side of the pass and the San Jacinto
Mountains are on the south side. The San Bernardino Mountains reach a
maximum elevation of approximately 11,500 feet at the top of San
Gorgonio Mountain and the San Jacinto Mountains reach a maximum
elevation of approximately 10,800 feet at Mt. San Jacinto.
The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California (``Morongo Tribe''
or ``Tribe'') is a federally-recognized Indian tribe whose Indian
country \1\ (``Morongo Reservation'' or ``Reservation'') lies within
the Banning Pass. The Morongo Reservation covers approximately 35,000
acres and is home to approximately 1,500 full-time residents.\2\ The
Morongo Reservation is rural, and most of the current land use is
residential or agricultural. The Morongo Reservation also hosts a hotel
and casino, among other enterprises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.'' The Morongo Tribe is the only
Tribe that has Indian country in the portion of the Banning Pass at
issue in this rulemaking.
\2\ See EPA's 2008 eight-hour ozone standard designations
Technical Support Document (TSD) found at https://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/designations/2008standards/documents/R9_CA_TSD_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The eastern edge of the Morongo Reservation abuts the current
boundary between the South Coast Air Basin and Southeast Desert/
Coachella Valley air planning areas. Most of the Morongo Reservation is
located north of Interstate 10, just east of the City of Banning, but
some of the Reservation is located south of Interstate 10 as well.
B. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires EPA to establish a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') for
pollutants that ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health and welfare'' and to develop a primary and secondary standard
for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human
health with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standard is
designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set
NAAQS for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria
pollutants: Ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, and lead.
In 1979, EPA promulgated the first ozone \3\ standard of 0.12 parts
per million (ppm), averaged over a one-hour period (``one-hour ozone
standard''), to replace an earlier photochemical oxidant standard. In
1997, EPA revised the ozone standard to 0.08 ppm, eight-hour average
(``1997 eight-hour ozone standard''), and then, in 2008, lowered the
eight-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm (``2008 ozone standard'').
Today's proposed action relates only to the designations and
classifications for the one-hour ozone and 1997 eight-hour ozone
standards, discussed below, but relies on EPA's analysis and rationale
for the Agency's recent designations for the 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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 power plants and industrial emissions sources,
on-road and off-road motor vehicles and engines, and smaller
sources, collectively referred to as area sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Area Designations and Classifications
Areas of the country were originally designated as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable following enactment of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). These
designations were generally based on monitored air quality values
compared to the applicable standard. Under the 1990 Amendments to the
CAA, ozone nonattainment areas were further classified as ``Marginal,''
``Moderate,'' ``Serious,'' ``Severe'' or ``Extreme'' depending upon the
severity of the ozone problem. Area designations and classifications
are codified in 40 CFR part 81; area designations and classifications
for California are codified at 40 CFR 81.305.
EPA has historically designated areas in Southern California by
referencing air basins, including the South Coast Air Basin \4\ and the
Southeast Desert Air Basin. More recently, the EPA has recognized
California's division of the former Southeast Desert Air Basin into the
Mojave Desert Air Basin and the Salton Sea Air Basin. The relevant
portion of the Southeast Desert Air Basin (and Salton Sea Air Basin)
for the purposes of this proposed action is Coachella Valley, which
covers roughly the middle third of Riverside County, i.e., east of the
South Coast Air Basin and west of the Little San Bernardino Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, the Morongo Reservation was included in the Coachella
Valley portion of the Southeast Desert Air Basin and was designated
accordingly for the various standards. In 2002, the State of California
requested that EPA revise the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin
and the Southeast Desert Air Basin to remove the Banning Pass area from
the Coachella Valley portion of the Southeast Desert Air Basin and
include it in the South Coast Air Basin. See 68 FR 57820 (October 7,
2003).\5\ Specifically, California sought to establish a new boundary
approximately 18 miles east of the then-established boundary between
the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley portion of the
Southeast Desert Air Basin. The boundary between the two basins was to
be moved from the range line common to Range 2 West and Range 1 West to
the range line common to Range 2 East and Range 3 East (San Bernardino
Base and
[[Page 53]]
Meridian).\6\ On October 7, 2003, EPA approved California's boundary
change request (68 FR 57820).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ California also requested two other specific boundary
changes: (1) To move the eastern boundary of the Coachella Valley
portion of the Southeast Desert ozone nonattainment area further
east to match the boundaries of the Coachella Valley PM-10
nonattainment area, and (2) to correct an error in the eastern
boundary of the San Bernardino County portion of the South Coast Air
Basin with respect to carbon monoxide. Unlike the boundary change to
enlarge the South Coast to include the entire Banning Pass area, the
change in the eastern boundary of the Coachella Valley portion of
the Southeast Desert ozone nonattainment area did not affect Indian
country and would not be affected by today's proposed action. The
approval of the State's request to correct the carbon monoxide
boundary simply fixed a typographical error and thereby removed from
the South Coast carbon monoxide nonattainment area a portion of San
Bernardino County that neither EPA nor California intended to be
included. See 68 FR 48848, at 48850 (August 15, 2003). EPA's
correction of the carbon monoxide boundary in San Bernardino County
would also be unaffected by today's proposed action.
\6\ For a detailed map of the area, please see the technical
support document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking available in the
docket for this action, EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the one-hour ozone standard, EPA's 2003 action had
the effect of moving the Morongo Reservation from the Coachella Valley
portion of the ``Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area'' (``Southeast
Desert'') to the South Coast Air Basin and changing the designations
and classifications accordingly. Specifically, EPA's 2003 action had
the effect of changing the ozone nonattainment area classification for
the Banning Pass area, including the Morongo Reservation, from
``Severe-17'' to ``Extreme''.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For carbon monoxide, EPA's action had the effect of changing
the designation of the Banning Pass area from ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' to ``Serious'' nonattainment. With respect to
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (``PM10''), the action did
not change the designation or classification of the Banning Pass
because both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley are
``Serious'' nonattainment areas for that pollutant. Both the South
Coast and Coachella Valley are designated as unclassifiable or
attainment for the nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide standards,
but, for nitrogen dioxide, the South Coast Air Basin is a former
nonattainment area for which a maintenance plan has been approved.
See 63 FR 39747 (July 24, 1998). Today's proposed action relates
only to the designations and classifications for the one-hour ozone
and 1997 eight-hour ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, EPA promulgated area designations and classifications for
the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Among the California areas, EPA
designated the ``Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA,'' the boundary
of which coincided with the boundary for the one-hour ozone standard,
as amended in 2003 to include the entire Banning Pass, including the
Morongo Reservation, as a ``Severe-17'' nonattainment area. See 69 FR
23858 (April 30, 2004). In EPA's 2004 final rule, the Agency designated
``Riverside Co. (Coachella Valley), CA'' (``Coachella Valley'') as a
``Serious'' nonattainment area. In 2007, the State of California
requested that EPA reclassify the South Coast nonattainment area from
``Severe-17'' to ``Extreme'' and the Coachella Valley nonattainment
area from ``Serious'' to ``Severe-15'' for the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard.
In response to EPA's 2003 boundary change action and California's
2007 reclassification request, the Morongo Tribe requested that EPA
create a separate nonattainment area for the Morongo Reservation or,
alternatively, move the western boundary of the Coachella Valley area
westward to include the Morongo Reservation. See letter from Robert
Martin, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, to Deborah Jordan,
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, dated May 29, 2009.
In 2009, in response to California's 2007 reclassification request,
EPA proposed that all Indian country in the South Coast be reclassified
in keeping with the classification of non-Indian country State lands to
``Extreme'' for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. See 43 FR 43654
(August 27, 2009). In 2010, EPA took final action granting the request
by California to reclassify the South Coast Air Basin from ``Severe-
17'' to ``Extreme'' for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, and to
reclassify all Indian country, except that pertaining to the Morongo
Tribe and the Pechanga Tribe, in keeping with the reclassification of
non-Indian country State lands to ``Extreme.'' With respect to the
Morongo Tribe and the Pechanga Tribe, EPA deferred reclassification
pending EPA's final decisions on their previously-submitted boundary
change requests. See 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010). In EPA's 2010 final
rule, the Agency also granted the request to reclassify the Coachella
Valley nonattainment area to ``Severe-15.''
Today's proposed action would correct EPA's 2003 action to the
extent that the action relates to the designations and classifications
of the Morongo Reservation for the one-hour ozone standard and would
establish a separate one-hour ozone nonattainment area for the
Reservation. Today's proposed action would also grant the Tribe's
request to revise the boundary designation and to designate the Morongo
Reservation as a separate nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ If we finalize our proposed action to revise the boundaries
of the South Coast to designate the Morongo Reservation as a
separate nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard,
EPA will withdraw our proposed rule to reclassify Indian country in
the South Coast to ``Extreme'' for the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard (74 FR 43654, August 27, 2009) to the extent that the 2009
proposed rule relates to the Morongo Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's proposed action would not affect the current designations
and classifications of the Morongo Reservation for any of the other
standards. Today's proposed action would also not affect the
designations and classifications for any pollutant with respect to
State lands.
II. Proposed Action
A. Legal Authority
The relevant statutory provisions for this proposed action are CAA
section 110(k)(6), which is EPA's error correction authority, and CAA
sections 107(d)(3), 301(a) and 301(d), which are EPA's authority to
redesignate Indian country areas under these circumstances.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides: ``Whenever the Administrator
determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or
promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area
designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in
error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval,
disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate without
requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and
the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and public.'' We
interpret this provision to authorize the Agency to make corrections to
a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our satisfaction that (1)
we clearly erred in failing to consider or inappropriately considering
information made available to EPA at the time of the promulgation, or
the information made available at the time of promulgation is
subsequently demonstrated to have been clearly inadequate, and (2)
other information persuasively supports a change in the regulation. See
57 FR 56762, at 56763 (November 30, 1992).
Sections 107(d)(3)(A)-(C) provide that EPA may initiate the
redesignation process ``on the basis of air quality data, planning and
control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations
the Administrator deems appropriate,'' and ``promulgate the
redesignation, if any, of the area or portion thereof.'' CAA section
107(d)(3) does not refer to Indian country, but consistent with EPA's
discretionary authority in CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to
directly administer CAA programs, and protect air quality in Indian
country through federal implementation, EPA is authorized to directly
administer sections 107(d)(3)(A)-(C) and redesignate Indian country
areas.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Revisions of designations are referred to as
``redesignations.'' Boundary changes revise an area's designation
and, as such, represent one type of redesignation. As a general
matter, EPA is no longer acting to redesignate areas with respect to
the revoked one-hour ozone standard. However, in this instance, EPA
is proposing to revise the designation of an air quality planning
area in concert with a proposal to correct a clear error that
occurred with respect to Indian country prior to revocation of the
one-hour ozone standard. As indicated in this document, EPA believes
that correction of this error is justified by the specific
jurisdictional context and the on-going regulatory impacts on the
Morongo Tribe arising from the error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54]]
B. Proposed Correction to 2003 Action
We have reviewed the materials submitted by the State of California
in connection with the State's 2002 request to enlarge the South Coast
Air Basin to include the Banning Pass area, thereby removing the area
from the Southeast Desert. We have also reviewed EPA's rationale for
approving the State's request. On the basis of that review, and for
reasons given below, EPA has concluded that while EPA's action to
approve California's request was not erroneous with respect to state
lands, it was erroneous with respect to the Morongo Reservation and
that we have sufficient justification to correct the error at this
time.
First, a review of the items listed in EPA's administrative record
for EPA's proposed (68 FR 48848, August 15, 2003) and final (68 FR
57820, October 7, 2003) rules approving California's boundary change
request reveals no reference to, or map illustrating the location of,
the Morongo Reservation.
Second, from review of the record, it is clear that EPA understood
its action as one in which the Agency was taking action on a State
request under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D). See, e.g., the proposed rule at
48850 (``* * * we are proposing to fully approve [the requests] under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(D).''). Section 107(d)(3)(D) provides: ``The
Governor of any State may, on the Governor's own motion, submit to the
Administrator a revised designation of any area or portion thereof
within the State.'' Typically, however, states are not approved to
administer programs under the CAA in Indian country, and California has
not been approved by EPA to administer any CAA programs in Indian
country. CAA actions in Indian country would thus generally be taken
either by EPA, or by an eligible Indian tribe itself under an EPA-
approved program. In this case, the Morongo Tribe has not applied under
CAA section 301(d) for treatment-in-a-similar-manner-as-a-state (TAS)
for purposes of designations and redesignations under section 107(d)
and does not implement any relevant EPA-approved CAA regulatory
program, nor has the tribe developed a tribal implementation plan
(TIP).\10\ In these circumstances, EPA is the appropriate entity to
administer relevant CAA programs in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In addition, the CAA does not require Indian tribes to
develop and seek approval of air programs, and pursuant to our
authority in CAA section 301(d), EPA has interpreted relevant CAA
requirements for submission of air programs as not applying to
tribes. See 40 CFR 49.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, with respect to the Indian country located within an area
subject to a State boundary change request, EPA is the appropriate
entity to initiate and promulgate the redesignation, and EPA could do
so under CAA sections 107(d)(3)(A)-(C) and sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4), as discussed above in subsection II.A (``Legal Authority'').
While EPA thus had authority to change the boundary of the South Coast
Air Basin with respect to Indian country, it is apparent from the
proposed and final rules in 2003 that EPA did not recognize that it was
acting under that authority or appropriately consider the effect of the
action on Indian country lands. EPA recognized only that the Agency was
acting on a State request under section 107(d)(3)(D) and reviewed the
request accordingly. As noted previously, states are not approved to
administer CAA programs in Indian country.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA is not excluding the possibility that Tribes can agree
with State requests in certain circumstances, nor are we suggesting
that we would undo actions we took just because we did not
explicitly identify Indian country land that was included with the
State land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If EPA's actions had more explicitly addressed the fact that the
State's request affected tribal lands, and also had expressly
considered the Tribe's position with respect to the State's request to
revise the boundary in relation to Indian country, EPA might well have
relied upon the same criteria cited in the proposed rule. The criteria,
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(A) include ``air quality data, planning
and control considerations, or any other air quality-related
considerations the Administrator deems appropriate''. The evaluation of
``planning and control considerations'' for Indian country, however,
differs from that for State lands. In this instance, with respect to
State lands, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
has planning and permitting responsibility over the entire Banning Pass
area, as well as the South Coast, and Coachella Valley, and administers
an EPA-approved (nonattainment) New Source Review (NSR) program under
which permits may be issued to new or modified stationary sources.
In contrast, EPA currently administers relevant CAA programs on the
Morongo Reservation. Until recently, EPA had not established a NSR
program applicable to the Reservation. This means that a higher ozone
classification, and simultaneous lowering (i.e., more stringent) of NSR
major source thresholds, would have presented a greater challenge for
new and modified stationary sources at the Morongo Reservation than for
similar sources on State lands in the Banning Pass subject to SCAQMD's
EPA-approved NSR program. (EPA's NSR rule for Indian country, including
the Morongo Reservation, was published on July 1, 2011 at 76 FR 38748
and took effect on August 30, 2011.)
Moreover, state law and SCAQMD rules restrict the use of emission
reduction credits generated under SCAQMD rules by major new or modified
sources located within the South Coast Air Basin, but outside the scope
of the SCAQMD program. See SCAQMD Rule 1309 (``Emission Reduction
Credits''), subsection (h)(3); and California Health & Safety Code
section 40709.6 (``Offset by reductions credited to stationary sources
located in another district''). Given the few emissions sources on the
Morongo Reservation, reliance upon emissions reductions by sources off
the Reservation to offset emissions from any major new or modified
sources on the Reservation is inevitable and because of the limitations
in state law and SCAQMD rules, the availability of such emissions
reductions is uncertain.
Therefore, as described above, in the specific circumstances
presented here, and based on our review of the record from the 2003
rulemaking, we conclude that EPA erred in including the Morongo
Reservation in the 2003 boundary change approval. Because Indian
country was subsumed into a larger area for which the State requested a
boundary revision, EPA should not have acted solely with respect to the
State's request under section 107(d)(3)(D), but should have fulfilled
its responsibilities pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(A)-(C), and sections
301(a) and 301(d) and considered the relevant criteria from the
perspective of Indian country.
Furthermore, we recognize that the boundary change has had adverse
regulatory impacts on the Morongo Tribe, particularly by lowering the
one-hour ozone NSR major source threshold from 25 tons per year to 10
tons per year. This adverse regulatory impact continues to affect the
Tribe, even though the one-hour ozone standard was revoked, effective
on June 15, 2005 [i.e., one year from the designations for the eight-
hour ozone standard--see 40 CFR 50.9(b)].
With respect to the one-hour ozone standard and the related NSR
major source thresholds, the Tribe continues to be affected because, in
the wake of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
challenging EPA's Phase I Implementation Rule for the
[[Page 55]]
eight-hour ozone standard,\12\ the NSR requirements that had applied by
virtue of the area's classification as of June 15, 2004 continue to
apply under anti-backsliding requirements established by EPA for the
transition from the one-hour ozone standard to the eight-hour ozone
standard. See 77 FR 28424 (May 14, 2012) for information concerning the
NSR requirement and the anti-backsliding provisions for the former one-
hour ozone standard. Thus, notwithstanding the revocation of the one-
hour ozone standard, the applicable major source NSR thresholds for the
Morongo Reservation continue to be 10 tons per year, based on the
inclusion of the Reservation in the South Coast because the South Coast
was classified as ``Extreme'' for the one-hour ozone standard on June
15, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) reh'g denied 489 F.3d 1245 (clarifying that
the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the court granted the
petitions for review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, given the on-going effects that flow from our 2003 error,
we are persuaded to propose action now to correct the error in our 2003
boundary change action as it relates to the Morongo Reservation.
In considering how to correct the error in our 2003 boundary change
action, we have concluded from our review of the administrative record
for that rulemaking that EPA did not commit an error with respect to
State lands. Our proposed action addresses only the specific regulatory
impact on the Morongo Reservation, and otherwise leaves the 2003 action
unchanged. Thus, we propose to rescind the 2003 boundary change rule
only with respect to the Morongo Reservation for the revoked one-hour
ozone standard.
Revocation of the 2003 boundary change rule with respect to the
Morongo Reservation would return it to its status before the 2003
boundary change, when the Reservation was included in the Southeast
Desert one-hour ozone nonattainment area. (see section I.C. herein). In
this action, however, EPA is taking the additional step of proposing to
revise the boundaries of the Southeast Desert to designate the Morongo
Reservation as a separate one-hour ozone nonattainment area. If both
proposed actions are finalized, the Morongo Reservation would resume
the one-hour ozone nonattainment classification it previously shared
with the Southeast Desert (i.e., ``Severe-17'').
We are not proposing to rescind the 2003 action with respect to
area designations for any of the other standards, because the Tribe has
not faced any significant adverse regulatory impacts from the boundary
change with respect to those pollutants. Our proposed action would not
affect any area designations or classifications with respect to State
lands.
C. Proposed Boundary Redesignation of the Morongo Reservation as a
Separate Nonattainment Area for the One-Hour Ozone and 1997 Eight-Hour
Ozone Standards
As noted previously, on May 29, 2009, the Morongo Tribe submitted a
request to EPA for a boundary change to create a separate ozone
nonattainment area, or in the alternative, to move the western boundary
of the Coachella Valley nonattainment area westward to include the
Morongo Reservation. As noted above, we are authorized to redesignate
Indian country areas under these circumstances under CAA sections
107(d)(3)(A)-(C), 301(a) and 301(d).
Recently, EPA issued a policy (referred to herein as the ``Tribal
Designation Policy'') for establishing separate air quality
designations for areas of Indian country.\13\ Where EPA receives a
request for a boundary change from a tribe seeking to have its Indian
country designated as a separate area, the policy indicates that EPA
will make decisions regarding these requests on a case-by-case basis
after consultation with the tribe. As a matter of policy, EPA believes
that it is important for tribes to submit the following information
when requesting a boundary change: A formal request from an authorized
tribal official; documentation of Indian country boundaries to which
the air quality designation request applies; concurrence with EPA's
intent to include the identified tribal lands in the 40 CFR part 81
table should EPA separately designate the area; and a multi-factor
analysis to support the request. See Tribal Designation Policy, pages 3
and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribal Designation Policy states that EPA intends to make
decisions regarding a tribe's request for a separate air quality
designation after all necessary consultation with the tribe and, as
appropriate, with the involvement of other affected entities, and after
evaluating whether there is sufficient information to support such a
designation. Boundary change requests for a separate air quality
designation should include an analysis of a number of factors (referred
to as a ``multi-factor analysis,'') including air quality data,
emissions-related data (including source emissions data, traffic and
commuting patterns, population density and degree of urbanization),
meteorology, geography/topography, and jurisdictional boundaries.\14\
EPA believes these factors are appropriate to consider in acting under
CAA sections 107(d)(3)(A)-(C), 301(a) and 301(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Tribal Designation Policy also states that, in addition
to information related to the identified factors, tribes may submit
any other information that they believe is important for EPA to
consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2009, the Chairman of the Morongo Tribe submitted the
Tribe's request for a separate ozone nonattainment area that included a
multi-factor analysis addressing air quality data, emissions data,
meteorology, geography/topography, and jurisdictional boundaries. As
such, although submitted prior to release of the Tribal Designation
Policy, the Morongo Tribe's request for a boundary change to create a
separate ozone nonattainment area, in conjunction with EPA's additional
analysis found in the technical support document for this proposed
action, represents the type of formal, official request and supporting
information called for in the policy.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In addition, EPA has consulted with the tribe several times
about this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recently reviewed the Morongo Tribe's multi-factor analysis in
connection with designating areas of the country for the 2008 ozone
standard. Upon review of the Tribe's analysis and EPA's own
supplemental analysis in light of the Tribal Designation Policy, EPA
designated the Morongo Reservation as a separate nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone standard. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). We believe
that EPA's analysis and recent decision to designate the Morongo
Reservation as a separate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standard is directly relevant to our consideration of whether to revise
the boundaries of existing air quality planning areas to designate the
Morongo Reservation as a separate nonattainment area for the one-hour
and 1997 eight-hour ozone standards. We recognize that the three
standards address the same pollutant, and thus share multi-factor
analyses and considerations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EPA also notes that in using many of the same factors found
in the 2008 ozone designations process, we are using factors that
represent the most current information regarding meteorology, air
quality, etc. in the area and therefore we believe serve the
purposes of being representative for the previously established
ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is therefore adopting the analysis and rationale previously
relied upon by EPA in establishing the Morongo nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone
[[Page 56]]
standard. Key findings from the 2008 ozone designations decision that
we are adopting for this proposed action include: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See the TSD associated with this proposal for our detailed
analysis of each of the factors. Our TSD also shows that violations
continue for the one-hour standard and that the transitional
characteristic observed for the eight-hour ozone data also applies
to the one-hour ozone data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality data: The SCAQMD-run monitor in Banning is
located within two miles of the Morongo monitor, and data from SCAQMD's
Banning monitor is appropriate for use as a regulatory monitor and is
representative of air quality within the Morongo Reservation. Eight-
hour ozone concentrations measured at the SCAQMD-run Banning ozone
monitor shows continued violations of the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard and, reflecting the transitional nature of the Banning Pass
area, contrast with the higher design values of the South Coast Air
Basin to the west and lower design values in Southeast Desert to the
east; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In performing our analysis, EPA relied on data from the
following monitoring stations in our air quality system (AQS):
Redlands (AQS 06-071-4003), Banning (AQS 06-065-
0012), and Palm Springs (AQS 06-065-5001). EPA believes
that the Banning monitor, given its proximity, is representative of
the Morongo Indian Country's air quality. EPA also notes that, while
the Morongo Tribe operates its own monitor, we did not use that data
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions data: Sources of air pollutants located on or
associated with the Morongo Reservation consist of stationary sources
that generate less than 20 tons per year (tpy) of NOX and
less than 20 tpy of VOC, and motor vehicles for travel associated with
the 1,500 residents and visitors to the Morongo Casino Resort. In
contrast, ozone precursor emissions from the adjacent Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin nonattainment area exceed 400,000 tpy of NOX
and over 200,000 tpy of VOC, with a total population of approximately
17 million people.\19\ To the east, ozone precursor emissions from the
adjacent Riverside County (Coachella Valley, which was originally part
of the Southeast Desert Air Basin) nonattainment area exceed 50,000 tpy
of NOX and 28,000 tpy of VOC, with a population of over 2
million people; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See page 5 of the Morongo portion of the 2008 eight-hour
ozone standard TSD found at https://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/designations/2008standards/documents/R9_CA_TSD_FINAL.pdf
\20\ See page 6 of the Morongo portion of the 2008 eight-hour
ozone standard TSD found at https://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/designations/2008standards/documents/R9_CA_TSD_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meteorology: Under most meteorological conditions, air
from the coastal plain (i.e., South Coast) to the west is funneled
through Banning Pass to the desert area to the east. As a mountain pass
area, the meteorology is dissimilar from that of either the coastal
plain to the west or the desert area to the east. The winds are more
frequent and stronger, with a more westerly component, than those in
most of the coastal plain, and the temperatures vary more than in most
of the coastal plain but not as much as in the desert area to the
east.\21\ Thus, in some ways, the Banning Pass is transitional between
the coastal and desert areas; in other ways, as a mountain pass, the
Banning Pass is simply unlike either area to the west or east;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Meteorological information for the Morongo Reservation is
from 2005-2009 Weather and Air Quality Summary, prepared by the
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Environmental Protection
Department, Tribal Air Program, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geography/topography: The topographical characteristics of
the Banning Pass create very different climatic conditions than found
in the coastal plain to the west or the desert area to the east, such
as persistently strong westerly air flow that is compressed and
channeled by the elevated land mass of the Pass itself and the steep
mountain peaks to the north and south; and
Jurisdictional boundaries: Although the Morongo
Reservation contains stationary and mobile sources of ozone precursors,
the magnitude of ozone precursor emissions is very small compared to
emissions from the adjacent Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin and
Coachella Valley nonattainment areas. Because the analysis of factors
does not conclusively indicate that the sources located on the Morongo
Reservation contribute to nonattainment in the surrounding area, EPA
believes that consistent with the principles set forth in the Tribal
Designation Policy, the jurisdictional boundaries factor is especially
important in the decision-making process for designating the Morongo
Reservation.
Air quality data, meteorology and topography indicate that the
Morongo Reservation experiences transitional conditions characteristic
of a mountain pass area through which pollutants are channeled from a
highly urbanized metropolitan nonattainment area to the west to the
relatively less developed nonattainment area to the east. Considering
the three factors of air quality data, meteorology, and topography, EPA
could reasonably include the Morongo Reservation in either the South
Coast nonattainment area to the west, or the Southeast Desert
nonattainment area to the east, as EPA has done in the past for the
one-hour ozone standard and the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
Alternatively, the Agency could establish a separate nonattainment area
for the Morongo Reservation as it did for the 2008 eight-hour ozone
standard.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 77 FR 30088, dated May 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, taking into account the minimal amount of emissions
associated with activities on the Morongo Reservation and corresponding
minimal contribution to regional ozone violations, we believe that in
these circumstances it is appropriate to assign particular weight to
the jurisdictional boundaries factor, and it is consistent with the
principles for designations of Indian country set forth in the Tribal
Designation Policy. Moreover, the Tribe has invested in the development
of its own air program, including operation of weather stations and an
air monitoring station, and has expressed interest in development of
its own permitting program. Under the jurisdictional boundaries factor,
we find that redesignation of the Morongo Reservation as a separate
ozone nonattainment area for the one-hour ozone and 1997 eight-hour
ozone standards would be appropriate. Therefore, consistent with the
designation of the Morongo Reservation for the 2008 ozone standard, we
propose to revise the boundaries of the Southeast Desert one-hour ozone
nonattainment area and the boundaries of the South Coast 1997 eight-
hour ozone nonattainment area to designate the Morongo Reservation as a
separate nonattainment area for the one-hour and 1997 eight-hour ozone
standards.
III. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
Under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to correct an
error in a 2003 final action that revised the boundaries between areas
in Southern California established under the CAA for the purposes of
addressing the standard for one-hour ozone. EPA has determined that the
Agency erred in the 2003 final action to change the boundary of the
South Coast Air Basin, which enlarged the basin to include all of the
Banning Pass area. In taking that action, EPA failed to consider the
presence of Indian country (i.e., the Morongo Reservation) located
therein. EPA thus failed to consider the status of the Indian country
under the appropriate statutory and regulatory provisions when it
evaluated and acted upon the State's boundary change request. EPA
believes that its error resulted in regulatory consequences for the
Morongo Tribe that justify making a correction.
[[Page 57]]
Specifically, EPA is proposing to rescind the 2003 final action, as
it pertains to the Morongo Reservation for the one-hour ozone standard.
This proposed action would not affect the designations and
classifications of State lands.
Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3), 301(a) and 301(d), we propose
to revise the boundaries of the Southeast Desert to designate the
Morongo Reservation as a separate nonattainment area for the one-hour
ozone standard and to classify the Morongo Reservation as ``Severe-
17,'' i.e., consistent with its prior classification when it was
included in the Southeast Desert. Third, also under CAA section
107(d)(3), 301(a) and 301(d), we are proposing to revise the boundaries
of the South Coast to designate the Morongo Reservation as a separate
nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard and to
classify the Morongo Reservation as ``Severe-17,'' i.e., consistent
with its original classification when it was included in the South
Coast.
We are proposing to redesignate the Morongo Reservation as a
separate air quality planning area for the one-hour ozone and 1997
eight-hour ozone standards 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
Southeast Desert air quality planning areas, that Morongo Reservation
emissions sources contribute minimally to regional ozone
concentrations, and that the jurisdictional boundaries factor should be
given particular weight under these circumstances.
If finalized as proposed, the Morongo air quality planning area for
the one-hour and 1997 eight-hour ozone standards would have the same
boundaries as the Morongo nonattainment area for the 2008 eight-hour
ozone standard. Moreover, if finalized as proposed, new or modified
stationary sources proposed for construction on the Morongo Reservation
would be subject to the NSR major source thresholds for ``Severe-17''
ozone nonattainment areas, rather than the more stringent thresholds
for ``Extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document and will accept comments for the next 30 days. These comments
will be considered before taking final action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this
proposed action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed
action would merely correct an error in a previous rulemaking and
redesignate certain air quality planning area boundaries, and thereby
reinstate certain CAA designations and corresponding requirements to
which the affected area had previously been subject.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. This proposed rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR
part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic
impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any direct
requirements on small entities. EPA is proposing to correct an error in
a previous rulemaking and redesignate certain air quality planning area
boundaries, and thereby reinstate certain CAA designations and
corresponding requirements to which the affected area had previously
been subject. This proposed action is intended to, among other
purposes, facilitate and support the Morongo Tribe's efforts to develop
a tribal air permit program by re-establishing, within the Morongo
Reservation, the less-stringent New Source Review major source
thresholds that had applied under the area's
[[Page 58]]
previous ``Severe-17'' classification for the one-hour ozone standard.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under
the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. In any event, EPA has determined that this proposed
rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This proposed action would merely correct an error in a
previous rulemaking and redesignate certain air quality planning area
boundaries, and thereby reinstate certain CAA designations and
corresponding requirements to which the affected area had previously
been subject, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Under section 5(b)
of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs,
and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under
section 5(c) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the
Agency consults with tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
EPA has concluded that this action would have tribal implications.
In 2009, the Morongo Tribe requested that EPA create a separate area
for the Morongo Reservation in part due to the adverse regulatory
impacts resulting from the Agency's 2003 boundary change action. EPA
consulted with representatives of the Morongo Tribe prior to, and
following, the Tribe's 2009 boundary change request, concerning the
issues covered herein. In today's proposed action, EPA is responding to
the Tribe's 2009 boundary change request and has proposed an action
that would eliminate the adverse regulatory impacts arising from EPA's
2003 boundary change action. As described herein, we agree with the
Tribe that the boundary should be corrected to reflect their concerns.
As proposed, this action will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Rather,
the proposed action would relieve the Tribe of the additional
requirements that flowed from the boundary change and corresponding
change in CAA designations and classifications. Thus, the requirements
of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
[[Page 59]]
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate risk to
children.
H. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed
rule does not involve establishment of technical standards, and thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply to this
action.
I. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. In this action, EPA is proposing to correct an error in a
previous rulemaking and redesignate certain air quality planning area
boundaries, and thereby reinstate certain CAA designations and
corresponding requirements to which the affected area had previously
been subject.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 20, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-31537 Filed 12-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P