Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 50339 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–17809 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0280; FRL–9947–70– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to California State 

Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 

for the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District (BAAQMD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on 

April 22, 2013. These revisions consist 

of significant updates to rules governing 

the issuance of permits for stationary 

sources, including review and 

permitting of major sources and major 

modifications under parts C and D of 

title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Under 

the authority of the CAA, this action 

simultaneously approves a local rule 

that regulates permit requirements for 

stationary sources and directs the 

BAAQMD to correct rule deficiencies. 

DATES: These rules will be effective on 

August 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0280 for this action. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports), and some may 

not be available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, (415) 

947–4156, kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The word or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials ATC mean or refer to 

the authority to construct permit. 

(iii) The word or initials BAAQMD or 

District mean or refer to the Bay Area 

Air Quality Management District. 

(iv) The initials CFR mean or refer to 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

(v) The initials or words EPA, we, us 

or our mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(vi) The initials ERCs mean or refer to 

Emission Reduction Credits. 

(vii) The initials FLM mean or refer to 

Federal Land Manager. 

(viii) The initials FR mean or refer to 

Federal Register. 

(ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(x) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (fine particulate matter). 

(xi) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

(xii) The initials PTE mean or refer to 

potential to emit. 

(xiii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(xiv) The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

(xv) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

the technical support document for the 

proposed action. 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 28, 2015, the EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the rules listed in Table 

1 that were submitted for incorporation 

into the California SIP. 80 FR 52236 

(Aug. 28, 2015). Our detailed analysis of 

these rules is provided in the TSD and 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

rulemaking for this SIP revision 

approval action. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULES

Regulation & rule No. Rule title Adopted/

amended Submitted 

Regulation 2, Rule 1 (2–1) ........................................... Permits, General Requirements ................................... 12/19/12 4/22/13 

Regulation 2, Rule 2 (2–2) ........................................... Permits, New Source Review ....................................... 12/19/12 4/22/13 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that these rules 

strengthen the SIP and are largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

some rule provisions conflict with CAA 

section 110, including Parts C and D, 

and the regulations implementing those 

laws. The disapproved provisions 

include the following: 

1. The definitions of ‘‘agricultural 

source’’ in Section 2–1–239 and ‘‘large 

confined animal facility’’ used in 

Section 2–1–424 rely on other 

definitions and provisions in District 

rules that are not SIP approved. (See our 

evaluation of Sections 2–1–239 and 2– 

1–424 in section 6.1.2 of the TSD.) 

2. Section 2–1–234, subparagraph 2.2, 

is deficient because it does not satisfy 

the PSD provisions at 40 CFR 

51.166(a)(7) and 51.166(r)(6) & (7), 

which require PSD programs to contain 

specific applicability procedures and 

recordkeeping provisions. (See our 

evaluation of Section 2–1–234 in 

sections 6.1.2 and 7.2.2 of the TSD.) 

3. The same deficiency discussed 

above for the PSD provisions applies to 

the nonattainment NSR provisions. 

Section 2–1–234, subparagraph 2.1, 

does not satisfy the requirements of 

51.165(a)(2) and 51.165(a)(6) & (7), 

which require nonattainment NSR 

programs to contain specific 

applicability procedures and 

recordkeeping provisions. (See our 

evaluation of Section 2–1–234 in 

sections 6.1.2 and 7.3.12 of the TSD.) 

4. The definition of the term ‘‘PSD 

pollutant’’ as defined in Section 2–2– 

223, which is used in place of the 

federal definition for the term 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ is deficient 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
50340 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1Each of the comments contained in CCEEB’s 

comment letter mirrored issues raised in the 

BAAQMD comment letter, therefore the comment 

summary provided in this notice does not attribute 

specific comments to CCEEB. Please see the 

Response to Comments documents for more 

information. 

because it explicitly excludes 

nonattainment pollutants. (See our 

evaluation of Sections 2–2–223 and 2– 

2–224 in sections 6.2.2 and 7.2.3 of the 

TSD.) 

5. Section 2–2–305 does not require 

written approval of the Administrator 

prior to using any modified or 

substituted air quality model as 

provided in subsection 3.2.2 of 40 CFR 

51, appendix W. (See our evaluation of 

Section 2–2–305 in sections 6.2.3 and 

7.2.15 of the TSD.) 

6. Section 2–2–611 does not include 

the requirement regarding ‘‘any other 

stationary source category which as of 

August 7, 1980, is being regulated under 

section 111 or 112 of the Act’’ in the list 

of source categories that must include 

fugitive emissions to determine whether 

a source is a major facility. (See our 

evaluation of Section 2–2–611 in 

sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.10 of the TSD.) 

7. Section 2–2–401.4 only requires a 

visibility analysis for sources that are 

located within 100 km of a Class I area, 

rather than for any source that ‘‘may 

have an impact on visibility’’ in any 

mandatory Class I Federal Area, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2). (See 

our evaluation of Section 2–2–401.4 in 

sections 6.2.4 and 7.3.9 of the TSD.) 

8. Section 2–2–411 pertaining to 

Offset Refunds does not contain any 

timeframe for obtaining an offset refund. 

(See our evaluation of Section 2–2–411 

in section 6.2.4 of the TSD.) 

9. The Offset Program Equivalence 

demonstration required by Section 2–2– 

412 does not provide a remedy if the 

District fails to make the required 

demonstration. (See our evaluation of 

Section 2–2–412 in section 6.2.4 of the 

TSD.) 

10. Subsection 2–2–605.2 allows 

existing ‘‘fully-offset’’ sources to 

generate ERCs based on the difference 

between the post-modification PTE and 

the pre-modification PTE. Emission 

reductions intended to be used as offsets 

for new major sources or major 

modifications are only creditable if they 

are reductions of actual emissions, not 

reductions in the PTE of a source. (See 

our evaluation of Section 2–2–605 in 

sections 6.2.6, 7.3.3, 7.3.13, and 7.3.22 

of the TSD.) 

11. Subsection 2–2–606.2, as it 

applies to major modifications, does not 

require ‘‘fully-offset’’ sources to 

calculate the emission increases from a 

proposed major modification based on 

the difference between the postmodification PTE and the premodification actual emissions as 

required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J). 

(See our evaluation of Section 2–2–606 

in sections 6.2.6 and 7.3.22 of the TSD.) 

In addition, we had proposed a 

limited disapproval of Section 2–2–308. 

(See our evaluation of Section 2–2–308 

in sections 6.2.3 and 7.4.1 of the TSD.) 

We also proposed to find the rules were 

deficient because they did not require a 

demonstration that a new source meet 

all applicable SIP requirements as 

required by 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1). (See 

section 7.4.1 in the TSD.) For the 

reasons discussed in sections 2.2 and 

2.3 of our Response to Comments 

document, we are not finalizing our 

proposed disapproval of Section 2–2– 

308 or the proposed deficiency based on 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(b)(1). 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Our August 28, 2015 proposed 

rulemaking provided a 30-day public 

comment period. The EPA granted a 

request from BAAQMD to extend the 

public comment period until November 

12, 2015, which is the date the public 

comment period ended. We received 

comments from BAAQMD and the 

California Council for Environmental 

and Economic Balance (CCEEB).1 We 

also received a comment letter from the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD) after 

the public comment period ended. We 

received an anonymous, nonsubstantive comment letter and a 

comment letter submitted on behalf of 

the California Air Pollution Control 

Officers Association (CAPCOA) that was 

withdrawn during the comment period. 

Our Response to Comments document 

in the docket for this action contains a 

summary of the comments and the 

EPA’s responses. The full text of the 

public comments, as well as all other 

documents relevant to this action, are 

available in the docket (visit http://

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket ID: EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0280). 

Below, we briefly summarize the 

significant comments and our responses 

to the major issues raised by 

commenters. 

Comment 1: BAAQMD commented 

that the CAA is designed to achieve 

‘‘cooperative federalism’’, and that the 

EPA should defer to the District’s policy 

choices on how to implement its NSR 

program. 

Response 1: The EPA understands its 

role under the cooperative federalism 

approach established under the CAA 

and we have applied the appropriate 

standard in reviewing the BAAQMD’s 

NSR rules. 

Comment 2: BAAQMD disagrees with 

the EPA’s limited disapproval of Section 

2–2–308 as it relates to satisfying the 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.160(b). 

Response 2: We are not finalizing our 

limited disapproval of Section 2–2–308 

as it relates to 40 CFR 51.160(b)(2) for 

the reasons discussed in our Response 

to Comments document. Accordingly, 

the EPA is finalizing approval of Section 

2–2–308. 

Comment 3: BAAQMD disagrees with 

the EPA’s limited disapproval of the 

District NSR rules because it did not 

contain a prohibition on the issuance of 

an ATC if the project does not meet all 

applicable requirements of the control 

strategy as required in 40 CFR 

51.160(b)(1). BAAQMD commented that 

Sections 2–1–304 and 2–1–321 satisfy 

this requirement. 

Response 3: The EPA is not finalizing 

our proposed limited disapproval of this 

issue because Section 2–1–304 satisfies 

the control strategy requirement in 40 

CFR 51.160(b)(1). The EPA is finalizing 

approval of Section 2–1–304 as 

satisfying requirement in 40 CFR 

51.160(b)(1). 

Comment 4: BAAQMD disagrees with 

the EPA’s proposed limited disapproval 

of Section 2–2–602.2 for determining 

the amount of offsets required for major 

modifications that will be constructed at 

major sources that have previously 

provided offsets equal to the source’s 

PTE when the modification will not 

increase the PTE of the source. 

Response 4: The EPA is finalizing our 

limited disapproval regarding this issue. 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(J) directs SIPs to 

include rules to ensure that the total 

tonnage of increased emissions, in tons 

per year, resulting from a major 

modification that must be offset in 

accordance with section 173 of the Act 

shall be determined by summing the 

difference between the allowable 

emissions after the modification and the 

actual emissions before the 

modification. This provision requires 

providing offsets for each major 

modification at a major source in an 

amount equal to the difference between 

pre-modification actual emissions and 

post-modification PTE. 

Comment 5: BAAQMD disagrees with 

the EPA’s proposed limited disapproval 

of the PTE-to-PTE calculation method 

for determining the amount of ERCs 

generated from sources that have 

provided offsets up to their full PTE and 

that are being shut down. 

Response 5: The EPA is finalizing its 

limited disapproval on this issue 

because offsets are required to be 

generated from reductions in actual 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 50341 

2On June 21, 2004, the EPA issued a PSD 

delegation agreement, which was updated on 

January 20, 2006, February 4, 2008, and March 9, 

2011. 

emissions consistent with CAA section 

173(a) and (c) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). 

Comment 6: BAAQMD comments that 

the EPA cannot require nonattainment 

offsets for SO2 because the San 

Francisco Bay Area is not designated as 

nonattainment for SO2. 

Response 6: The EPA is finalizing its 

limited disapproval on this issue 

because 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii) 

specifies that sulfur dioxide is a 

precursor in all PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas and the BAAQMD is designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

Comment 7: BAAQMD comments that 

the EPA’s visibility regulations at 40 

CFR 51.307(b) do not specify what 

projects ‘‘may have an impact’’ on 

visibility at Federal Class I areas, 

therefore it is acceptable to use a 100- 

km radius to meet the requirement. 

Response 7: The EPA is finalizing its 

limited disapproval on this issue 

because the EPA’s visibility regulations 

require a new major source or major 

modification that ‘‘may have an impact 

on visibility’’ at a Federal mandatory 

Class I area to conduct a visibility 

analysis on a case-by-case basis in 

consultation with the applicable FLM. 

Comment 8: BAAQMD requests that 

the EPA confirm that the limited 

approval and limited disapproval action 

will make the BAAQMD’s NSR rules as 

a whole part of the California SIP and 

federally enforceable under the CAA. 

Response 8: Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 

2 will become the federally enforceable 

NSR program in the SIP for BAAQMD 

subject to an obligation to correct rule 

deficiencies listed in Section I of this 

Federal Register document. 

III. EPA Action 

For the reasons provided in our 

proposed rule and above in response to 

comments, pursuant to section 110(k) of 

the CAA, the EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

submitted BAAQMD rules, listed in 

Table 1 above, into the California SIP. 

Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 will become 

the federally enforceable NSR program 

in the SIP for BAAQMD subject to an 

obligation to correct the rule 

deficiencies listed in Section I of this 

Federal Register document. We are 

finalizing a limited approval because 

incorporating the BAAQMD permitting 

rules will strengthen and update the 

BAAQMD portion of the California SIP. 

We are finalizing our limited 

disapproval because some of the 

BAAQMD permitting rules do not 

comply with federal NSR requirements. 

We are finalizing our action as 

proposed, except for the limited 

disapprovals regarding Sections 2–2– 

308 and the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.160(a) and (b). Accordingly, the EPA 

will finalize approval of these 

provisions. 

Our limited disapproval action will 

trigger an obligation for the EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan under CAA section 110(c) unless 

California corrects the deficiencies that 

are the bases for the limited 

disapproval, and the EPA approves the 

related rule revisions, within 24 months 

of the effective date of this final action. 

In addition, sanctions will be imposed 

unless the EPA approves subsequent SIP 

revisions that correct the rule 

deficiencies within 18 months of the 

effective date of this action. These 

sanctions will be imposed under section 

179 of the Act and 40 CFR 52.31. 

The District has been implementing 

the federal PSD permitting program 

based on a delegation agreement with 

the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u).2

Despite limited deficiencies, this final 

action approving the District’s PSD 

permitting program into the SIP means 

that the District will be the PSD 

permitting authority on the effective 

date of this final action. Concurrent 

with the EPA’s approval of the District’s 

rules, all PSD permits for sources 

located in the BAAQMD issued directly 

by the EPA or under the PSD delegation 

agreement are being transferred to the 

District. A list of these EPA-issued 

permits is included in the docket for 

this rulemaking action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

The EPA is finalizing regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

finalizing the incorporation by reference 

of the BAAQMD rules described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because the SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
50342 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 30, 

2016. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Environmental protection, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 3, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(182)(i)(B)(7) and 

(c)(199)(i)(A)(9) and (c)(202)(i)(A)(2) and 

(c)(429)(i)(E)(1) and (2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(182) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(7) Previously approved on January 

26, 1999 in paragraph (c)(182)(i)(B)(6) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(429)(i)(E)(1), 

Regulation 2, Rule 1 adopted on 

November 1, 1989. 

* * * * * 

(199) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(9) Previously approved on January 

26, 1999 in paragraph (c)(199)(i)(A)(8) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(429)(i)(E)(2), 

Regulation 2, Rule 2 adopted on June 

15, 1994. 

* * * * * 

(202) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Previously approved on April 3, 

1995 in paragraph (c)(202)(i)(A)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(429)(i)(E)(1), Rule 2– 

1–249, adopted on June 15, 1994. 

* * * * * 

(429) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District. 

(1) Regulation 2, ‘‘Permits,’’ Rule 1, 

‘‘General Requirements,’’ adopted on 

December 19, 2012. 

(2) Regulation 2, ‘‘Permits,’’ Rule 2, 

‘‘New Source Review,’’ adopted on 

December 19, 2012. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.270 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(16) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.270 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(16) The PSD program for the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), as incorporated by 

reference in § 52.220(c)(429)(i)(E)(2), is 

approved under part C, subpart 1, of the 

Clean Air Act. For PSD permits 

previously issued by EPA pursuant to 

§ 52.21 to sources located in the 

BAAQMD, this approval includes the 

authority for the BAAQMD to conduct 

general administration of these existing 

permits, authority to process and issue 

any and all subsequent permit actions 

relating to such permits, and authority 

to enforce such permits. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–17904 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0617; A–1–FRL– 

9950–03–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; VT; Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, 

Nonattainment and Minor New Source 

Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving three State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Vermont. 

These revisions primarily amend several 

aspects of Vermont’s new source review 

permitting regulations. The permitting 

revisions are part of Vermont’s major 

and minor stationary source 

preconstruction permitting programs, 

and are intended to align Vermont’s 

regulations with the federal new source 

review regulations. The revisions also 

contain amendments to other Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements, including 

updating the State’s ambient air quality 

standards and certain emissions limits 

for sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES