
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6331-6335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2508]



[[Page 6331]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \1\ All references in this notice to particular section numbers 
are to the designated sections within Regulation 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One modified definition was for non-road 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 non-road 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

[[Page 6332]]

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

[[Page 6333]]

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

    \2\ Memorandum from Edward E. Reich entitled Construction 
Activities prior to Issuance of a PSD Permit with Respect to ``Begin 
Actual Construction'' (March 28, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 6334]]

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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(116) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 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


