Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 6331 

1All references in this notice to particular section 

numbers are to the designated sections within 

Regulation 3. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1027; FRL–9251–1] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Colorado; 

Revision to Definitions; Construction 

Permit Program; Regulation 3 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving 

and partially disapproving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

June 20, 2003 and April 12, 2004. This 

final rule will approve those portions of 

the revisions to Colorado’s Regulation 3 

that place restrictions on increment 

consumption, add innovative control 

technology as an alternative to BACT 

requirements and make other changes as 

described in more detail below. EPA 

will act separately on the portions of the 

June 20, 2003 and April 12, 2004 

submittals that revise Regulation 3, Part 

A, Section II, Air Pollutant Emission 

Notice (APEN) Requirements. Today’s 

action on the Colorado Regulation 3 

revisions will make federally 

enforceable the revised portions of 

Colorado’s Regulation 3 that EPA is 

approving. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective March 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1027. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Komp, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, telephone number (303) 

312–6022, fax number (303) 312–6064, 

komp.mark@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Colorado 

mean the State of Colorado, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(v) The initials APEN mean or refer to 

Air Pollutant Emission Notice. 

(vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review, the initials RACT 

mean or refer to Reasonably Available 

Control Technology, the initials BACT 

mean or refer to Best Available Control 

Technology and the initials NAAQS 

mean or refer to National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background Information 

On June 20, 2003 and on April 12, 

2004, the State of Colorado submitted 

formal revisions to its SIP that changed 

or deleted numerous definitions in Part 

A of the State’s Regulation Number 3. 

Primarily, these were minor changes 

designed to fix ambiguous language, to 

make the definitions more readable or to 

delete obsolete or duplicative 

definitions. In addition to the 

clarifications, formatting and readability 

changes were made to the definition 

section and a number of definitions 

were added or modified to reflect 

developments in federal law. In the 

April 12, 2004 submittal, the only 

revision to Parts A and B of Regulation 

3 was a minor change to Part A, Section 

I.A 1 regarding the availability of 

material incorporated by reference. 

One modified definition was for nonroad engines. In response to the 1990 

CAA Amendments, federal case law, 

and EPA’s interpretation of the term, 

Colorado modified the definition of a 

non-road engine. The definition was 

also moved from the APEN section of 

Regulation 3 (Part A, Section II) to the 

definition section (Part A, Section I). In 

addition, Colorado took steps to keep 

track of these sources by requiring a 

non-road engine rated at 1,200 

horsepower or greater to file a Colorado 

APEN. The filing of an APEN for nonroad engines is stipulated by Colorado’s 

SIP revisions to be a State-only 

requirement. 

New definitions also included the 

definition of Pollution Control Projects 

at existing electric utility steam 

generating units and the use of Clean 

Coal Technology at these units. 

Colorado also revised its definitions of 

actual emissions and major modification 

to include special provisions governing 

physical or operational changes at 

electric utility steam generating units. 

These new definitions and revisions 

responded to changes in the federal 

regulations arising out of the decision in 

the Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

(‘‘WEPCO’’) case (Wisconsin Electric 

Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F.2d 901 (7th 

Cir. 1990)). As a result of the WEPCO 

decision, EPA’s NSR regulations were 

changed in 1992 and Colorado 

responded to the changes by adding 

these definitions to its Regulation 3. 

Revisions were also submitted 

involving Part B of Colorado’s 

Regulation 3. Part B describes the 

process air emission sources must go 

through to obtain a required 

construction permit prior to 

commencing operation. The State’s 

submittals modified the exemptions 

from construction permitting, modified 

requirements for permit applicants, 

added restrictions on increment 

consumption, and added provisions 

regarding innovative control technology. 

Colorado added language to its area 

classification section of Part B, Section 

V stating that within certain Class II 

areas in the State (for example, certain 

National Monuments that are not Class 

I areas), sulfur dioxide concentration 

increases over baseline concentrations 

are limited to the amount permitted in 

Class I areas as established under 

Section 163(b) of the federal CAA. Such 

increases are not allowed if the Federal 

Land Manager determines and the State 

concurs that there would be an adverse 

impact on air quality from the sulfur 

dioxide concentration increase. 

In Section III.D.1.c(iii), Colorado 

modified the exemption from 

construction permitting for stationary 

internal combustion engines. The State 

also limited to 75 percent the amount 

that a new major stationary source or 

major modification may consume of an 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6332 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable pollutant increment (Part B, 

Section VII.A.5). Sources may ask for a 

waiver from the limit. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received one letter from the State 

of Colorado dated December 8, 2010 that 

provided one comment on our 

November 8, 2010 Federal Register 

proposed action regarding the partial 

approval and partial disapproval of 

Colorado’s SIP revisions to their 

Regulation 3. The comment addresses 

our proposed disapproval of the portion 

of the revision regarding sections IV.B.2 

and IV.H.8 in Part B of Regulation 3. 

The revision changed the existing 

requirement for construction permit 

applicants to submit in their application 

an operating and maintenance plan and 

recordkeeping format (collectively, 

‘‘O&M plan’’). In its place, the revision 

would require the owner or operator to 

submit the O&M plan before final 

permit approval. In this section EPA 

responds to the comment made by the 

State. 

Comment—Colorado expressed its 

concern that the disapproval would 

delay permit issuance, create 

inefficiencies, and result in increased 

need for resources. Colorado stated that 

the final version of the O&M plan is 

dependent on conditions of the issued 

permit and on performance testing after 

the source has been authorized to 

construct. As a result of the disapproval 

of this portion of the revision, Colorado 

believes that there will be insufficient 

information to submit and review the 

initial submission of the O&M plan, and 

therefore there will be inefficient use of 

resources when the State reviews both 

the initial and final versions of it. 

Colorado also expressed concern that 

disapproval of the provision would 

result in modifications of O&M plans 

having to be submitted as SIP revisions, 

a process that Colorado believes would 

cause additional delays. As a result, the 

State asked EPA to delay action on the 

portion of the revision regarding 

sections IV.B.2. 

EPA Response—EPA notes that the 

State did not take issue with the basis 

for our proposed disapproval. In our 

proposal, we stated that the operating 

and maintenance plan and 

recordkeeping format appeared to be 

information on the operation of the 

source that was necessary to determine 

whether construction or modification of 

the source would violate the applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of a national standard. See 

40 CFR 51.160(a), (c). Therefore, we 

reasoned, such information must be 

submitted by the owner or operator of 

the source and as a result must be 

subject to public comment. See 40 CFR 

51.161(a). As the State acknowledges, 

the proposed revision removes the 

existing requirement that the 

information be submitted in the 

application and only requires that it be 

submitted before final permit approval. 

As EPA noted in the proposal (and the 

State does not dispute), this change does 

not ensure that the public has 30 days 

to comment on both the information and 

the permitting agency’s analysis of the 

effect on air quality, as required by 40 

CFR 51.161. Furthermore, the State did 

not take issue with our determination 

that such information was necessary 

under 40 CFR 51.160; and therefore, 

must be subject to public comment 

under 40 CFR 51.161. Thus, the State 

comment described above does not 

provide a basis for EPA to change its 

proposed disapproval. In response to 

the State’s request that EPA delay action 

on the proposed revision, EPA notes 

that under a consent decree entered in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Colorado, EPA must take final action on 

the submitted provision by December 

31, 2010. (WildEarth Guardians v. 

Jackson, Civ. No. 09–2148 (D. Colo. 

2009)). 

EPA appreciates the State’s concern 

for efficient processing of construction 

permits. However, requiring owners and 

operators to submit the O&M plan and 

recordkeeping format in their 

application for a construction permit is 

not unduly burdensome. If the 

application contains sufficient other 

information (such as the nature of the 

facility, processes, and emissions units) 

to enable the State to determine whether 

construction or modification of the 

source meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.160(a), then the applicant is also 

in a position to submit an O&M plan 

and recordkeeping format. Furthermore, 

the State is then in a position to 

determine from the information in the 

application the controls and other 

applicable requirements that must be 

reflected in the final permit, and as a 

result modify the O&M plan 

accordingly. To the extent that 

performance testing subsequently 

requires modification of the O&M plan, 

the State does not need to submit a SIP 

revision for such modification. O&M 

plan revisions would constitute a 

modification of the construction permit 

to which the requirements of section 

110(i) of the Act would not apply. 

III. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. Those portions 

of the revision to Colorado’s Regulation 

3 that we are approving satisfy section 

110(l), because those portions do not 

relax existing SIP requirements. Instead, 

the portions of the June 20, 2003 and 

April 12, 2004 submittals EPA is 

approving increase stringency of 

existing requirements, clarify existing 

requirements, or remove obsolete 

requirements. Therefore, section 110(l) 

is satisfied. 

IV. Final Action 

We have evaluated Colorado’s June 

20, 2003 and April 12, 2004 submittals 

regarding revisions to the State’s 

Regulation 3, Parts A and B. We are 

approving most of the revisions from the 

two submittals but are disapproving 

certain revisions within the June 20, 

2003 submittal. Also, we are taking no 

action on the State-only requirements in 

sections I.B.40.c. and d. for nonroad 

engines, as we regard these as submitted 

only for informational purposes. We 

will take separate action on the portion 

of the June 20, 2003 and April 12, 2004 

submittals regarding Regulation 3, Part 

A, Section II, Air Pollutant Emission 

Notice (APEN) Requirements. 

What EPA Is Disapproving 

The State added terms and definitions 

(Section I.B.69) in response to EPA’s 

1992 WEPCO rule. Under the definition 

of ‘‘modification’’ (I.B.36), the State also 

added provisions related to these 

definitions, including for pollution 

control projects (I.B.36.b (iii)(G) and 

I.B.69.d). On June 24, 2005, the Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated the 

Pollution Control Project portion of the 

WEPCO rule as well as the 

corresponding portion of EPA’s 2002 

NSR rule (State of New York et al. v. 

EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005)). 

Therefore, EPA is disapproving Part A, 

Section I.B.36.b(iii)(G) and Section 

I.B.69.d in Regulation 3. 

EPA is disapproving the new 

provisions in Part A, Section IV.C. 

regarding emissions trading under 

permit caps. These new provisions 

apply to both construction permits and 

to CAA Title V operating permits. For 

operating permits, the provisions should 

not be incorporated into the federally 

enforceable version of the Colorado SIP. 

Instead, they should be submitted 

separately under 40 CFR 70.4(i) as a 

revision of Colorado’s approved 

operating permit program. To the extent 

that these new provisions apply to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) or nonattainment NSR for major 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 6333 

2Memorandum from Edward E. Reich entitled 

Construction Activities prior to Issuance of a PSD 

Permit with Respect to ‘‘Begin Actual Construction’’ 

(March 28, 1986). 

sources or major modifications, they are 

not allowed by the regulations in 40 

CFR 51.166 or 51.165. EPA provides a 

mechanism for establishing permit caps 

through plant wide applicability 

limitations (PALs). The provisions in 

IV.C for emissions trading under permit 

caps do not meet the requirements for 

PALs in 40 CFR 51.165(f) and 40 CFR 

51.166(w). Therefore, EPA is 

disapproving the provisions for 

emissions trading under permit caps set 

forth in Section IV.C. 

In Part A, Section V.F.5, Colorado 

expanded the acronym Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) as 

one instance of a regulation-wide style 

change that expanded many acronyms. 

The revision apparently inadvertently 

deleted the requirement that trading 

transactions may not be used 

inconsistently with or to circumvent 

requirements of LAER. EPA is 

disapproving this change because 

emissions trading must be consistent 

with other requirements of the CAA, 

including LAER. 

Turning to Part B of Regulation 3, in 

Section III.D.1.c(iii), the State modified 

the requirements for stationary internal 

combustion engines to be exempt from 

construction permitting. Previously, all 

such engines were exempt if they had 

actual emissions of less than five tons 

per year or were rated less than fifty 

horsepower. Under the revision, in 

attainment areas such engines are 

exempt if they have uncontrolled actual 

emissions of less than ten tons per year 

or are rated less than one hundred 

horsepower; thus, more engines may be 

exempt from construction permitting 

under the revision. Under section 110(l) 

of the CAA, EPA cannot approve a SIP 

revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress, as defined in Section 171 of 

the CAA, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The State did 

not provide a demonstration or other 

analysis that the expansion of the 

exemption satisfies the requirements of 

section 110(l). Exempting a potentially 

greater number of stationary engines 

from construction permitting may result 

in increased emissions of criteria 

pollutants such as NOx. EPA therefore 

disapproves the revision to Section 

III.D.I.c(iii). 

Finally, for the reasons discussed in 

the Response to Comments, EPA is 

disapproving the revision to Part B, 

Section IV.B.2 and Section IV.H.8 

regarding operating and maintenance 

plans and recordkeeping formats. 

What EPA Is Approving 

The State added language to its 

definition of actual emissions (Section 

I.B.1.d) for electric utility steam 

generating units. The State defined 

actual emissions by allowing the actual 

emissions from the unit following a 

physical or operational change of the 

unit to equal the actual annual 

emissions of the unit provided the 

owner or operator can provide 

information from a five year period 

showing no emission increase resulting 

from the unit’s physical or operational 

change. This revised definition is 

consistent with EPA’s 1992 WEPCO rule 

discussed earlier in this proposed rule. 

Although a term used (‘‘representative 

actual annual emissions’’) is that of the 

WEPCO rule, the substance of the 

revised definition is also consistent with 

current federal regulations in 40 CFR 

51.165 and 51.166, and EPA, therefore, 

is approving the revised definition. 

The State also modified its definition 

for commenced construction in Section 

I.B.13 by excluding certain construction 

activities from the requirement for a 

permit. Planning activities, site clearing 

and grading, ordering equipment and 

materials, storing of equipment, 

constructing personnel trailers, 

engineering and design changes, and 

geotechnical investigation do not 

require that a permit be issued prior to 

these activities. EPA is approving this 

change in the definition of commenced 

construction as it is consistent with EPA 

guidance interpreting the equivalent 

term, ‘‘begin actual construction.’’ 2 As 

noted in that guidance, though, such 

activity, if undertaken prior to issuance 

of a permit, is at the risk of the owner 

or operator and would not guarantee 

that the permit would be forthcoming. 

The revisions to Regulation 3 

excluded the consideration of clean coal 

technology demonstration projects as a 

major modification when the projects do 

not result in an increase in the potential 

to emit of any regulated pollutant. EPA 

is approving this revision since the 

revision is consistent with the Federal 

NSR regulations described at 40 CFR 

51.165 and 51.166. 

Earlier in this final rule EPA stated 

that we were disapproving Pollution 

Control Projects as defined in Section 

I.B.36.b(iii)(G) and Section I.B.69.d of 

Colorado’s Regulation 3. However, the 

remainder of the revised definitions 

within Part A, Section I.B.36 and 

Section I. B. 69 are consistent with 

EPA’s 1992 WEPCO rule and with 

current federal NSR regulations. EPA is 

therefore approving the definitions for 

clean coal technology, electric utility 

steam generating unit, reactivation of 

very clean coal-fired electric utility 

steam generating unit, repowering, 

representative actual annual emissions, 

temporary clean coal technology 

demonstration project and wet 

screening operations. 

Colorado revised its fee schedule in 

Part A, Section VI.D by eliminating the 

dollar amount of the annual fee and 

referring the fee applicant to provisions 

provided in Colorado’s Revised Statutes 

Section 25–7–114.7. Colorado also 

revised the filing of claims regarding 

confidential information and how the 

State elevates such claims (Part A, 

Section VII.). EPA is approving these 

revisions. 

Turning to Part B of Regulation 3, 

EPA is approving the construction 

permit review requirements regarding 

RACT for minor sources in attainment/ 

maintenance areas that were added in 

Part B, Section IV.D.3.e. These 

requirements mirror the existing 

requirements in Section IV.D.2.d for 

minor sources in nonattainment areas. 

As noted in Section II of this 

proposed rule, in Part B, Section V of 

Colorado’s Regulation 3, the State made 

the restrictions on maximum allowable 

increases of sulfur dioxide 

concentrations over baseline 

concentrations in Class I areas also 

applicable to certain Class II areas, such 

as certain National Monuments that are 

not Class I areas. This change 

strengthens the SIP by making the more 

stringent Class I restrictions also 

applicable in the listed Class II areas; 

EPA is therefore approving the revision. 

Increment consumption restrictions 

were added to Part B, Section VII.A.5 of 

Colorado’s Regulation 3. EPA is 

approving this revision as the revision 

is more stringent than federal 

requirements regarding increment 

consumption. 

Finally, the State added Part B, 

Section IX regarding the use of 

innovative control technology. EPA is 

approving this revision since the 

revision is consistent with the federal 

NSR regulations described at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(19). 

Minor changes designed to fix 

ambiguous language, to make the 

definitions more readable or to delete 

obsolete or duplicative definitions were 

made throughout the entirety of Parts A 

and B. These changes are approved by 

EPA. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
6334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 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 FR 43255, 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 Clean Air Act; 

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). 

In addition, this 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 5, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by Reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 29, 2010. 

Carol Rushin, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 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 G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(116) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(116) On June 20, 2003, the State of 

Colorado submitted revisions to 

Colorado’s Regulation 3 Regulation, 5 

CCR 1001–5, that place restrictions on 

increment consumption, add innovative 

control technology as an alternative to 

BACT requirements, and changed or 

deleted numerous definitions in Part A. 

The State in Part B revised construction 

permit review requirements regarding 

RACT for minor sources in attainment/ 

maintenance areas. The State made the 

restrictions on maximum allowable 

increases of sulfur dioxide 

concentrations over baseline 

concentrations in Class I areas also 

applicable to certain Class II areas, such 

as certain National Monuments that are 

not Class I areas. Increment 

consumption restrictions were added to 

limit major stationary sources from 

consuming more than 75 percent of an 

applicable increment. The State added 

the use of innovative control technology 

by a source in lieu of BACT 

requirements in order to encourage the 

use of such technology. The revisions to 

both Parts and B also included minor 

changes designed to fix ambiguous 

language, to make the definitions more 

readable or to delete obsolete or 

duplicative definitions. On April 12, 

2004, the State of Colorado submitted a 

minor revision to Part A, Section I.A 

regarding the availability of material 

incorporated by reference. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Regulation 3, 5 CCR 1001–5, AIR 

CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS 

NOTICES, Part A, Concerning General 

Provisions Applicable to Construction 

Permits and Operating Permits, effective 

December 2002 and April 2003 with the 

following exceptions: 

(1) Section I.B.36.b.(iii)(G) provisions 

related to Pollution Control Projects 

(2) Section I.B.40.c.(ii) Submittal of an 

application for a nonroad engine permit, 

State-only requirement 

(3) Section IV. C., Emissions Trading 

under Permit Caps 

(4) Section V.F.5, Criteria for 

Approval of all Transactions, deleting 

the requirement that trading 

transactions may not be used 

inconsistently with or to circumvent 

requirements of LAER 

(B) Regulation 3, 5 CCR 1001–5, AIR 

CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS 

NOTICES, Part B, Concerning 

Construction Permits including 

Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD), Area 

Classifications, Part B, Section V.B., 

effective December 2002 with the 

following exceptions: 

(1) Section III.D.1.c(iii), Exemption 

from Construction Permit Requirements, 

Uncontrolled Emissions 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 6335 

(2) Section IV.B.2, Application for a 

Construction Permit, and Section 

IV.H.8, Application for a Final Permit, 

regarding operating and maintenance 

plans and recordkeeping formats. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2508 Filed 2–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0098; FRL–8861–9] 

Sodium and Potassium Salts of N-alkyl 

(C8–C18)-beta-iminodipropionic acid; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of sodium and 

potassium salts of N-alkyl (C8–C18)-betaiminodipropionic acid where the C8–C18

is linear and may be saturated and/or 

unsaturated, (CAS Reg. Nos. 110676– 

19–2, 3655–00–3, 61791–56–8, 14960– 

06–6, 26256–79–1, 90170–43–7, 91696– 

17–2, and 97862–48–1), herein referred 

to in this document as SSNAs, when 

used as inert ingredients for pre- and 

post-harvest uses and for application to 

animals at a maximum of 30% by 

weight in pesticide formulations. The 

Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster 

Support Team Number 14, submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting the establishment of an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of SSNAs. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

February 4, 2011. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before April 5, 2011, and must be 

filed in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0098. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Samek, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 347–8825; e-mail address: 

samek.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How can i get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the 

harmonized test guidelines referenced 

in this document electronically, please 

go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and 

select ‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0098 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before April 5, 2011. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit a copy of 

your non-CBI objection or hearing 

request, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0098, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Petition for Exemption 

In the Federal Register of March 19, 

2010 (75 FR 132771) (FRL–8813–2), 

EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 

408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

petition (PP 9E7631) by The Joint Inerts 

Task Force, Cluster Support Team 14 

(CST 14), c/o CropLife America, 1156 

15th Street, NW., Suite 400, 

Washington, DC 20005. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES