72744 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This proposed rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to partially approve 

and partially disapprove state rules 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

This action does not involve or impose 

any requirements that affect Indian 

Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

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: November 28, 2005. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 05–23715 Filed 12–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R08–OAR–2005–CO–0003; FRL–8005–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Colorado; Revisions to New Source 

Review Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

those revisions adopted by Colorado on 

April 16, 2004 to Regulation No. 3 

(Stationary Source Permitting and Air 

Pollutant Emission Notice 

Requirements) that incorporate EPA’s 

December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. 

Colorado submitted the request for 

approval of these rule revisions into the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) on July 

11, 2005 and supplemented its request 

on October 25, 2005. At this time, EPA 

is proposing to approve only the 

portions of Colorado’s revisions to 

Regulation Number 3 that relate to the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) and non-attainment new source 

review (NSR) construction permit 

programs of the State of Colorado. Other 

revisions, renumberings, additions, or 

deletions to Regulation No. 3 made by 

Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 

final rulemaking will be acted on by 

EPA in a separate action. Colorado has 

a Federally approved New Source 

Review (NSR) program for new and 

modified sources impacting attainment 

and non-attainment areas in the State. 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published revisions to the federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and non-attainment NSR 

regulations. These revisions are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘NSR Reform’’

regulations and became effective 

nationally in areas not covered by a SIP 

on March 3, 2003. These regulatory 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72745 

revisions include provisions for baseline 

emissions determinations, actual-tofuture actual methodology, plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs), clean units, 

and pollution control projects (PCPs). 

On November 7, 2003, EPA published a 

reconsideration of the NSR Reform 

regulations that clarified two provisions 

in the regulations. On June 24, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit issued its 

ruling on challenges to the December 

2002 NSR Reform revisions. Although 

the Court upheld most of EPA’s rules, it 

vacated both the Clean Unit and the 

Pollution Control Project provisions and 

remanded back to EPA the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ standard for when a source 

must keep certain project related 

records. 

Colorado is seeking approval, at this 

time, for its regulations to implement 

the NSR Reform provisions that have 

not been vacated or remanded by the 

June 24, 2005, court decision. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R08-OAR–2005- 

CO–0003 by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub. Regional RME, 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comments system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Once 

in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’

then key in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: daly.carl@epa.gov. 

Fax: (303)312–6064 (please alert the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

Mail: You may send written 

comments to: Richard R. Long, Director, 

Air and Radiation Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, 

Denver, Colorado 80202. 

Hand delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: Richard R. Long, Director, 

Air and Radiation Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, 3rd 

floor, Denver, Colorado 80202. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R08-OAR–2005-CO–0003. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available at http://docket.epa.gov/ 

rmepub, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through RME, regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and 

the federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through RME or 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET online or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the RME 

index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Air and 

Radiation Program, 999 18th Street, 

Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202. We 

recommend that you telephone Carl 

Daly at (303) 312–6416 before visiting 

the Region 8 office. This Facility is open 

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Daly, Air and Radiation Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, 

Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 312–

6416, daly.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 

This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

D. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

II. What Is Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is 

Approving? 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action affects major stationary 

sources in Colorado that are subject to 

or potentially subject to the PSD or 

nonattainment NSR construction permit 

program. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

1. The Regional Office has established 

an electronic public rulemaking file 

available for inspection at RME under 

ID No. R08–OAR–2005–CO–0003, and a 

hard copy file which is available for 

inspection at the Regional Office. The 

official public file consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public rulemaking 

file does not include CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

rulemaking file is the collection of 

materials that is available for public 

viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air 

72746 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

and Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, 

999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, 

Colorado 80202. EPA requests that, if at 

all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m. 

excluding Federal holidays. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the 

regulations.gov Web site located at 

http://www.regulations.gov where you 

can find, review, and submit comments 

on Federal rules that have been 

published in the Federal Register, the 

Government’s legal newspaper, and that 

are open for comment. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing at the EPA Regional Office and 

as part of the electronic public 

rulemaking file (EDocket), as EPA 

receives them and without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, CBI, or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

the official public rulemaking file. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

at the Regional Office for public 

inspection. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through Regional 

Materials in EDOCKET, regulations.gov 

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

D. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

rulemaking identification number by 

including the text ‘‘Public comment on 

proposed rulemaking Region 8 Air 

Docket R08–OAR–2005–CO–0003’’ in 

the subject line on the first page of your 

comment. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the 

specified comment period. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments. Submit comments to the email or street address given in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

II. What Is Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

We are proposing to approve portions 

of Colorado’s revisions to the Stationary 

Source Permitting and Air Pollutant 

Emission Notice Requirements 

(Regulation No. 3), submitted by 

Colorado on July 11, 2005 and October 

25, 2005, that relate to the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) 

construction permit programs of the 

State of Colorado. These revisions, 

among other revisions, to Regulation 

No. 3 were adopted by the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission on April 

16, 2004. Regulation No. 3 includes the 

PSD and non-attainment NSR 

construction permit programs of the 

State of Colorado. On February 3, 1983, 

EPA determined that Colorado’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) satisfied all 

requirements of Part D of the Clean Air 

Act for regulating stationary sources in 

non-attainment areas (48 FR 29071). 

Colorado’s Regulations for a Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program for attainment areas were 

Federally approved (with some 

exceptions) and made a part of the SIP 

on September 2, 1986 (51 FR 31125). 

Finally, Colorado adopted a merged 

NSR/operating permit program that was 

approved by EPA on January 21, 1997 

(62 FR 2910). 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published revisions to the federal PSD 

and non-attainment NSR regulations in 

40 CFR parts 51 and 52 (67 FR 80186). 

These revisions are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘NSR Reform’’ regulations and 

became effective nationally in areas not 

covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. 

These regulatory revisions include 

provisions for baseline emissions 

determinations, actual-to-future actual 

methodology, plantwide applicability 

limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution 

control projects (PCPs). As stated in the 

rulemaking, State and local permitting 

agencies must adopt and submit 

revisions to their part 51 permitting 

programs implementing the minimum 

program elements of that rulemaking no 

later than January 2, 2006 (67 FR 

80240). With the July 11, 2005 

submittal, Colorado requested approval 

of program revisions into the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that satisfy 

this requirement. 

On November 7, 2003, EPA published 

a reconsideration of the NSR Reform 

regulations that clarified two provisions 

in the regulations by including a 

definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ and by 

clarifying that the plantwide 

applicability limitation (PAL) baseline 

calculation procedures for newly 

constructed units do not apply to 

modified units. On June 24, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit issued its 

ruling on challenges to the December 

2002 NSR Reform revisions State of 

New York et al. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. 

Cir. 2005). Although the Court upheld 

most of EPA’s rules, it vacated both the 

Clean Unit and the Pollution Control 

Project provisions and remanded back 

to EPA the recordkeeping provision that 

required a stationary source to keep 

records of projects when there was a 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ that the project 

could result in a significant emissions 

increase. 

Colorado’s PSD and NSR program 

revisions were published in the Air 

Quality Control Commission Regulation 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72747 

No. 3 (5 CCR 1001–5) on June 30, 2004 

and are noted as Revision 4/16/2004. In 

the revised regulation Colorado noted 

that NSR Reform revisions will become 

effective in Colorado when the EPA 

approves that language for incorporation 

into the State Implementation Plan. This 

is noted in the Style Guide to Regulation 

No. 3, as ‘‘italicized text will become 

effective when the U.S. EPA approves 

that language for incorporation into the 

state implementation plan.’’ In addition, 

Colorado noted that provisions 

superceded by the NSR Reforms will be 

effective in Colorado only up to when 

EPA approves the new NSR Reform 

language into the State Implementation 

Plan. This is noted in the Style Guide 

to Regulation No. 3, as ‘‘underlined text 

will be effective until the U.S. EPA 

approves the italicized text for 

incorporation into the state 

implementation plan.’’ In the 

transmittal letter for the July 11, 2005 

submission Colorado requested that 

EPA not take action, at this time, on the 

clean unit and PCP provisions of the 

state rule and on the term ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ in provisions D.V.A.7.c. and 

D.VI.B.5. of the state rule. In a 

September 28, 2005 letter to EPA, 

Colorado provided a revised list of 

provisions that Colorado requested EPA, 

at this time, not take action on. Colorado 

supplemented its July 11, 2005 request 

in an October 25, 2005 submission that 

provided two correct April 16, 2004 

versions of Regulation No. 3. All of 

these documents are available for 

review as part of the Docket for this 

action. 

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is 

Approving? 

EPA is proposing to approve those 

revisions adopted by Colorado on April 

16, 2004 to Regulation No. 3 (Stationary 

Source Permitting and Air Pollutant 

Emission Notice Requirements) that 

incorporate EPA’s December 30, 2002 

NSR Reforms (with the exceptions noted 

in the table below). EPA is also 

proposing to approve revisions Colorado 

made to Regulation No. 3 prior to the 

April 16, 2004 final rulemaking that 

incorporate the revisions EPA made to 

the Federal NSR rules on July 21, 1992 

(with the exceptions noted in the table 

below). These revisions are referred to 

as the WEPCO rule (for the Wisconsin 

Electric Power Company court ruling) 

and added definitions and provisions 

that have been incorporated into the 

April 16, 2004 version of Regulation No. 

3. 

In addition to incorporating the NSR 

Reforms into the April 16, 2004 

Regulation No. 3 revision, Colorado also 

restructured Regulation No. 3, including 

adding a new Part D titled Concerning 

Major Stationary Source New Source 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. The new Part D contains 

most of the NSR/PSD definitions, 

provisions, and sections that were 

revised or newly created by the NSR 

Reform rule. In addition, numerous 

Regulation No. 3 Part A and Part B NSR/ 

PSD definitions, provisions, and 

sections not revised by the NSR Reform 

rule, but already approved into the SIP, 

have been moved into the new Part D. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revisions to Regulation No. 3 creating 

the new Part D with the exceptions 

noted in the table below. 

The revisions adopted by Colorado on 

April 16, 2004 have structured 

Regulation No. 3 as follows: Part A now 

contains general provisions applicable 

to reporting and permitting, Part B 

addresses construction permits; Part C 

(not a part of the SIP) includes the 

operating permit program; and Part D 

deals with the Nonattainment New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs for 

major stationary sources. Minor sources 

will only be subject to Parts A and B; 

major sources (as defined for the 

Operating Permit program) are governed 

by Parts A, B and C. Major stationary 

sources must comply with Parts A, B, C 

and D. In particular, this reorganization 

separated the major stationary source 

NSR provisions from the construction 

permit requirements applicable to all 

sources. 

Part A Changes. EPA is proposing to 

approve changes Colorado made to Part 

A where the NSR Reform rule added or 

changed specific language used in this 

Part (as specified in the table below). In 

addition, EPA is proposing to approve 

changes Colorado made in Part A that 

moved the provisions applying to major 

NSR to Part D (as specified in the table 

below). EPA is not taking action, at this 

time, on any other revisions, 

renumberings, additions, or deletions to 

Part A made by Colorado as part of the 

April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. 

These other changes will be acted on by 

EPA in a separate action. 

Changes to Part B. EPA is proposing 

to approve only the NSR Reform rule 

conforming changes Colorado made in 

Part B, which moved the provisions 

applying to major NSR to Part D (as 

specified in the table below). At this 

time, EPA is not taking action on any 

other revisions, renumberings, 

additions, or deletions to Part B made 

by Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 

final rulemaking action. These other 

changes will be acted on by EPA in a 

separate action. 

Part D Changes. Colorado created 

Regulation No. 3 Part D in order to make 

Colorado’s air quality program 

consistent with the EPA NSR Reform 

rules. The references to NSR 

requirements in Part D include both the 

nonattainment NSR and PSD programs. 

Based on Colorado’s request, EPA is not 

taking action, at this time, on provisions 

related to clean units, pollution control 

projects, and the term ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ as it appears in D–V.A.7.c. 

and D–VI.B.5. EPA is proposing to 

approve the new Part D except for the 

specific provisions noted in the table 

below. 

The following table specifies 

provisions of Regulation No. 3 that 

Colorado revised/renumbered or newly 

added in order to incorporate EPA’s 

NSR Reform and WEPCO rules and to 

create a separate NSR/PSD major 

stationary source part (Part D). The table 

also notes whether the provision is 

being proposed by EPA to be 

incorporated into the Colorado SIP. 

72748 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules Provision location in Colo- rado’s current SIP Reg. 3 (N/A = not in current Colorado SIP) Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg. 3 Revision Provision description EPA proposing to incor- porate revision or addi- tion into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 Comment (if applicable see footnote) 

A–I.B.1 .............................. D–II.A.I ........................... Actual emissions definition ........................ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(21), 51.165(a)(1)(xii) ................. Note the reference in this definition to 

‘‘I.B.1.a’’ should be to ‘‘II.A.1.a.’’ and 

Colorado will correct this reference in a future revision of Regulation No. 3. 

EPA is proposing approval for this definition. See footnote 1. 

A–I.B.7 .............................. D–II.A.3 .......................... Air Quality Related Value definition .......... Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.8 .............................. A–I.B.7 ............................ Allowable Emissions definition .................. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(16), 51.165(a)(1)(xi) .................. Colorado added ‘‘enforceable as a practical matter’’ and moved ‘‘future compliance date’’ phrase to this definition. 

EPA is proposing approval for this definition. See footnotes 1 and 2. 

A–I.B.10 ............................ D–II.A.5 .......................... Baseline Area definition ............................ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(15) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.11 ............................ D–II.A.6 .......................... Baseline Concentration definition .............. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(13) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.12 ............................ D–II.A.8 .......................... Best Available Control Technology definition. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(12), 51.165(a)(1)(xl) .................. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.15. ........................... D–II.A.12. ....................... Complete definition (for PSD/NSR purposes). Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(22) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. 

The reference in II.A.12.a.(vii) of this definition to ‘‘III.G.4. of Part B’’ is not in the 

current codified SIP. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.21 ............................ D–II.A.16 ........................ Federal Land Manager definition .............. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(24), 51.165(a)(1)(xlii) ................ EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.31 ............................ D–II.A.19 ........................ Innovative Control Technology definition .. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(19) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.32 ............................ D–II.A.21 ........................ Lowest Achievable Emission Rate definition. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(52), 51.165(a)(1)(xiii) ................ EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. 

See footnotes 1 and 2. 

A–I.B.33 ............................ D–II.A.24 ........................ Major Source Baseline Date definition ...... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(14)(i) .......................................... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.34 ............................ D–II.A.26 ........................ Minor Source Baseline Date definition ...... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(14)(ii) ......................................... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.35.b ......................... D–II.A.23 (except 

II.A.23.d(iii), (viii), (x), (xi), and (e)

—see 

below).

Major Modification definition ...................... Yes, except as noted 

below.

51.166(b)(2), 51.165(a)(1)(v) ..................... EPA is proposing approval for all of D–

II.23. except sections D–II.A.23.d.(viii), (x), and (xi). 

Note that the provision in II.A.23.e that 

references ‘‘section II.A.2’’ should reference ‘‘II.A.31’’ and Colorado will correct this reference in a future revision of 

Regulation 3. 

See footnotes 1 and 2. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.23.d.(iii) ................ Use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit (part of Major Modification 

definition).

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(d), 

51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(4)(iv).

EPA is proposing approval of this definition. See footnote 1. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72749 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.23.d(viii) ............... Addition replacement or use of a PCP 

* * * (part of Major Modification definition).

No ................................... 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(h), 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8) .. EPA is not taking action on this part of 

the definition at this time at the request of Colorado. 

N/A .................................... D–II.23.d(x) ..................... The installation or operation of a permanent clean coal technology demonstration project that constitutes repowering 

(part of Major Modification definition).

No, as noted ................... 51.166(b)(2)(j) ............................................ EPA is not taking action, at this time, on 

this part of the definition. 

See footnote 3. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.23.d(xi) ................ The reactivation of a very clean coal fired 

electric utility steam generating unit. (part of Major Modification definition).

No, as noted ................... 51.166(b)(2)(k) ........................................... EPA is not taking action, at this time, on 

this part of the definition. 

See footnote 3. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.23.e ..................... This definition shall not apply * * * for a 

PAL (part of Major Modification definition).

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(2)(iv), 51.165(a)(1)(v)(D) ........... EPA is proposing approval for this definition 

Note that the reference in this definition 

should be to II.A.31 not II.A.2., and Colorado will correct this reference in a future revision of Regulation 3. 

See footnote 1. 

A–1.B.36 ........................... D–II.A.27. (except 

II.A.27.c.(iv) and II.A.g.(v)).

Net Emissions Increase definition ............. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(3), 51.165(a)(1)(vi) .................... Colorado has added additional language 

at II.A.27.c.(iii), and II.A.27.g.(i). 

EPA is proposing approval for this definition. Note that provision II.A.27.a.(i) references 

‘‘I.A.4.’’ However, there is no I.A.4. and 

this reference will be deleted by Colorado. 

See footnotes 1 & 2. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.27.c(iv) ................. Net emission increase at a clean unit 

(part of Net Emissions Increase definition).

No ................................... 51.166(b)(3)(ii)(c), 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)(3) .. EPA is not taking action on this part of 

the definition at this time at the request of Colorado. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.27.g(v) ................. Net emissions increase at a clean unit 

and pollution control project (part of Net Emissions Increase definition).

No ................................... 51.166(b)(3)(vi)(d), 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(5) EPA is not taking action on this part of 

the definition at this time at the request of Colorado. 

A–I.B.44 ............................ A–I.B.35 .......................... Potential to Emit definition ........................ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(4), 51.165(a)(1)(iii) .................... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.55 ............................ D–II.A.43 ........................ Secondary Emissions definition ................ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(18), 51.165(a)(1)(viii) ................ EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

A–I.B.57 ............................ D–II.A.44 ........................ Significant definition .................................. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(23), 51.165(a)(1)(x) ................... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

A–I.B. 58. Major Stationary 

Source.

D–II.A.25 ........................ Major Stationary Source definition (introductory). Yes, except as noted below. 51.166(b)(1)(i), 51.165(a)(1)(iv) ................. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion except for section D–II.A.25.b. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.58.a ......................... D–II.A.25.b ..................... For the purpose of determining whether a 

source in a nonattainment area is subject. (part of Major Stationary Source definition).

No, as noted ................... 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1) ................................. EPA is not taking action, at this time, on 

this part of the definition. 

Provision A–I.B.58.a. in the current codified SIP remains in effect as part of the 

definition of Major Stationary Source. 

See footnote 4. 

A–I.B.58.b ......................... D–II.A.25.a ..................... For the purpose of determining whether a 

source in an attainment or unclassifiable area (part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a) ....................................... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.58.c ......................... D–II.A.25.c ...................... Major stationary source includes any 

physical change that would occur at a stationary source (part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(1)(i)(c), 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(2) ... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

72750 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules Provision location in Colo- rado’s current SIP Reg. 3 (N/A = not in current Colorado SIP) Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg. 3 Revision Provision description EPA proposing to incor- porate revision or addi- tion into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 Comment (if applicable see footnote) 

A–I.B.58.d ......................... D–II.A.25.d ..................... A major stationary source that is major for 

volatile organic compounds shall be considered major (part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 51.165(as)(1)(iv)(B) ......... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.58.f .......................... D–II.A.25.e ..................... The fugitive emissions of a stationery 

source shall not be included (part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(1)(iii), 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C) .......... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.58.e ......................... D–II.A.25.f ...................... Emissions caused by indirect air pollution 

sources (part of Major Stationery Source definition).

Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

The reference in this definition to ‘‘I.B.22. 

of Part A’’ is at A–I.B.58. in the current codified SIP. 

See footnote 2. 

A–I.B.58.g ......................... D–II.A.25.g ..................... A major stationary source in the Denver 

Metro PM10 (part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes ................................. .................................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 2. 

N/A .................................... D–III. ............................... Permit Review Procedures ........................ Yes ................................. .................................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

N/A .................................... D–III.A ............................ Major Stationary Sources must apply for 

CP or OP.

Yes ................................. .................................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

B–IV.B.5 ............................ D–III.B ............................ Process PSD applications w/in 12 months Yes ................................. .................................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

N/A .................................... D–IV ............................... Public Comment Requirements ................ Yes ................................. 51.166(q) ................................................... EPA is propoosing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

N/A .................................... D–IV.A ............................ Public Notice ............................................. Yes ................................. 51.166(q) ................................................... Copied from Part B, IV.C.4. of current 

codified SIP. 

EPA is proposing approval for this section. The reference in D–IV.A. to ‘‘III.C.3. of 

Part B’’ is at B–IV.C.3 in the current codified SIP. 

............................................................... See footnote 2. 

B–IV.C.4.–from ‘‘For 

sources subject to the provisions of section IV.D.3.’’ to ‘‘The newspaper notice’’.

D–IV.A.1 ......................... Public notice of NSR and PSD permit applications. Yes ................................. 51.166(g)(ii) and (iv) .................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section See footnote 2. 

B–IV.C.4.f .......................... D–IV.A.2 ......................... Additionally, for permit applications * * * 

(request comment on).

Yes ................................. 51.166(a)(iii) .............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.C.5 ............................ D–IV.A.3 ......................... Within 15 days after prepare PA ............... Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.C.6 ............................ D–IV.A.4 ......................... Hearing request for innovative control ...... Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EAP is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.C.7 ............................ D–IV.A.5 ......................... Hearing request transmitted to commission. Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this sec- tion. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.C.8 ............................ D–IV.A.6 ......................... Commission shall hold public comment 

hearing.

Yes ................................. 51.166(q)(v) ............................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.C.9 ............................ D–IV.A.7 ......................... 15 days after division makes final decision 

on application.

Yes ................................. 51.166(q)(viii) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72751 

B–IV.D.2 ............................ D–V ................................ Requirements Applicable to Non-attainment Areas (Introductory). Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this sec- tion. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.a ......................... D–V.A ............................. Major Stationary Sources .......................... Yes ................................. 51.165, Appx. S.IV.A ................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

The reference in D–V.A. to ‘‘III.D.1. of 

Part B’’ is at B–IV.D.1. in the current codified SIP. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.a(i) through (iii) .. D–V.A.1. through 3 ........ Major Stationary Sources .......................... Yes ................................. 51.165, Appx. S.IV.A Condiitons 1–4 ....... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(iii)(C) 2nd par D–V.A.3.d ....................... With respect to offsets from outside nonattainment area. Yes ................................. 51.165, Appx. S.IV.D ................................. EPA is proposing approval for this sec- tion. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(iv) ................... D–V.A.4 .......................... The permit application shall include an 

analysis of alternative sites * * *.

Yes ................................. 51.165, Appx. S.IV.D ................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(v) ................... D–V.A.5 .......................... Offsets for which emission reduction credit is taken * * *. Yes ................................. 51.165, Appx. S.V.A .................................. EPA is proposing approval for this sec- tion. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.a(vi) .................... D–V.A.6 .......................... The applicant will demonstrate that emissions from the proposed source will not 

adversely impact visibility * * *.

Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.b ......................... D–V.A.7 .......................... Applicability of Certain Nonattainment 

Area Requirements.

Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.b.(i) .................... D–V.A.7.a ....................... Any major stationary source in a nonattainment area * * *. Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this sec- tion. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.2.b(ii) ..................... D–V.A.7.b ....................... The requirements of section V.A. shall 

apply at such time that any stationary source * * *.

Yes ................................. 51.165(a)(5)(ii) ........................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

N/A .................................... D–V.A.7.c ....................... The following provisions apply to projects 

at existing emissions units * * * (‘‘Reasonable possibility’’ provisions in nonattainment areas) (part of Applicability of Certain Nonattainment Area Requirements).

Yes, except as noted in 

comment section.

51.165(a)(6) ............................................... EPA is not taking action on the terms 

‘‘clean unit’’ or ‘‘reasonable possiblity’’

used in this provision at this time at the request of Colorado 

See footnote 1 and 5. 

N/A .................................... D–V.A.7.d ....................... Documents available for review upon request (part of Applicability of Certain 

Nonattainment Area Requirements).

Yes ................................. 51.165(a)(7) ............................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1. 

B–IV.D.2.c (and subsections).

D–V.A.8 .......................... Exemptions from Certain Nonattainment 

Area Requirements.

Yes ................................. 51.165, Appx. S.IV.B ................................. EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3 ............................ D–VI ............................... Requirements Applicable to Attainment 

Areas (Introductory).

Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. Colorado has deleted unnecessary introductory language from this provision. 

EPA is proposing approval for this provision. See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.a. (and subsections not listed 

below).

D–VI.A ............................ Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications. Yes ................................. 51.166(j) .................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this sec- tion. 

The reference in D–VI.A. to ‘‘III.D.1. of 

Part B’’ is at B–IV.D.1. in the current codified SIP. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.a(i)(C) ................ D–VI.A.1.c ...................... For phased construction * * *. ................. Yes ................................. 51.166(j)(4) ................................................ EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1 and 2. 

B–IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D) .............. D–VI.A.3.d ...................... In general, the continuous air monitoring 

data.

Yes ................................. 51.166(m)(1)(iv) ......................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnotes 1 and 2. 

B–IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D) .............. D–VI.A.4 ......................... Post-construction monitoring ..................... Yes ................................. 51.166(m)(2) .............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

72752 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules Provision location in Colo- rado’s current SIP Reg. 3 (N/A = not in current Colorado SIP) Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg. 3 Revision Provision description EPA proposing to incor- porate revision or addi- tion into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 Comment (if applicable see footnote) Colorado has revised this provision to make post construction monitoring at the director’s discretion as allowed by 51.166(m)(2). See footnotes 1 and 2. 

B–IV.D.3.b ......................... D–VI.B ............................ Applicability of Certain PSD Requirements Yes ................................. N/A ............................................................. EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(i) .................... D–VI.B.1 ......................... The requirements of section VI.A. do not 

apply.

Yes ................................. 51.166(i)(1) and (2) ................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(ii) .................... D–VI.B.2 ......................... The requirements contained in sections 

VI.A.2 through VI.A.4.

Yes ................................. 51.166(i)(3) and 4 ...................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.b(iii) .................... D–VI.B.3. (including D–

VI.B.3.b., c., and d.).

The division may exempt a proposed 

major stationary source or major modification from the requirements of sections VI.A.3. through VI.A.5. of this Part, with respect to monitoring for a particular pollutant if: * * *.

Yes ................................. 51.166(i)(5) ................................................ Colorado has reworded D–VI.B.3. and deleted unnecessary language. 

EPA is proposing approval for this provision. See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(iii)(A)(1)–(12) D–VI.B.3.a.(i)–(ix) ........... deleted Mercury, Beryllium, Vinyl chloride Yes ................................. 51.166(i)(5)(i) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnotes 1 & 2. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(iv) ................... D–VI.B.4 ......................... The requirements of this Part D shall 

apply * * *.

Yes ................................. 51.166(i)(6) ................................................ EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

N/A .................................... D–VI.B.5 ......................... The following provisions apply to projects 

at existing emissions units * * * (‘‘Reasonable possibly’’ provisions PSD). 

(Part of Applicability of Certain PSD Requirements).

Yes, except as noted in 

comment section.

51.166(r)(6) ................................................ EPA is proposing approval for this section 

with the exception that EPA is not taking action on the terms ‘‘clean unit’’ or ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ used in this 

provision, at this time, at the request of Colorado. 

See footnote 1 and 5. 

N/A .................................... D–VI.B.6 ......................... documents available for review upon request. (part of Applicability of Certain 

PSD Requirements).

Yes ................................. 51.166(r)(7) ................................................ EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1. 

B–IV.D.3.b(v) .................... D–VI.B.7 ......................... A stationary source or modification may 

apply.

Yes ................................. 51.166(i)(9) ................................................ EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.c ......................... D–VI.C ............................ Notice to EPA ............................................ Yes ................................. 51.166(p)(1) ............................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.3.d ......................... D–VI.D ............................ Major Stationary Sources in attainment 

areas affecting nonattainment area.

Yes ................................. 51.165(b) ................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

The reference in D–VI.D. to ‘‘III.D.I. of 

Part B’’ is at B–IV.D.1 in the current codified SIP. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IV.D.4 ............................ D–VII .............................. Negligibly Reactive VOCs ......................... Yes ................................. 51.100(s) ................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–V ................................... D–VIII ............................. Area Classifications ................................... Yes, with the exception 

of D–VIII.B.

51.166(e) ................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provisions with the exception of D–VIII.B. 

See footnote 2. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72753 

N/A .................................... D–VIII.B .......................... All other areas of Colorado, (part of Area 

Classifications).

No ................................... N/A ............................................................. This provision is not in the currently codified SIP. EPA is not proposing approval 

as part of this action. 

See FR Notice of 3/25/98 (14357). 

B–VI .................................. D–IX ............................... Redesignation ............................................ Yes ................................. 51.166(e) ................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–VII ................................. D–X ................................ Air Quality Limitations ............................... Yes, with the exception 

of D–X.A.5.

51.166(c) ................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision with the exception of D–X.A.5. 

See footnote 2. 

N/A .................................... D–X.A.5 .......................... Increment Consumption Restriction (part 

of Air Quality Limitations).

No ................................... N/A ............................................................. This provision is not in the currently codified SIP. EPA is not proposing approval 

as part of this action. 

See FR Notice of 3/25/98 (14357). 

B–VIII ................................ D–XI ............................... Exclusions from Increment Consumption Yes ................................. 51.166(f) .................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–IX .................................. D–XII .............................. Innovative Control Technology .................. Yes ................................. 51.166(s) ................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 2. 

B–X ................................... D–XIII ............................. Federal Class I Areas ............................... Yes ................................. 51.166(p) ................................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

The reference in D–XIII.C. to ‘‘III.B. of 

Part B’’ is at B–IV.b. in the current codified SIP. 

See footnote 2. 

B–XI .................................. D–XIV ............................. Visibility ...................................................... No ................................... N/A ............................................................. EPA is not taking action on this section. 

This section will be acted on by EPA as a separate action. 

N/A .................................... A–I.B.13 .......................... CEMS definition ......................................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(43), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxiv) ............ EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... A–I.B.14 .......................... CERMS definition ...................................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(46), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxiv) ............ EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... A–I.B.15 .......................... CPMS definition ......................................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(45), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxiv) ............ EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... A–I.B.33 .......................... Pollution Prevention definition ................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(38), 51.165(a)(1)(xxvi) .............. EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... A–I.B.36 .......................... PEMS definition ......................................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(44), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxii) ............. EPA is proposing approval for this provision. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–I.A .............................. General Applicability (Introductory) ........... Yes ................................. 51.166(a)(7), (iv)(a) and (b), 

51.165(a)(2)(iii) (A) and (B).

EPA is proposing approval for this definition. See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–I.B. (except 1.b.3. and 

second sentence of 1.B.4.).

Applicability Tests ...................................... Yes ................................. 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), (d), and (f),

51.165(a)(2)(ii)(C), (D), and (F).

EPA is proposing approval for this definition with the exception of I.B.3. and the 

second sentence of I.B.4. 

N/A .................................... D–I.B.3 ........................... Emissions tests at clean units (part of Applicability Tests). No ................................... 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(e), 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(E) ....... EPA is not taking action on this provision at this time at the request of Colorado. 

The reference in D–I.B.5. to ‘‘I.B.26. of 

Part A’’ is at A–I.B.35.c. in the current 

codified SIP. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–I.B.4. Second sentence. For example, for a project involves both an existing unit and a clean unit. No ................................... 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f) second sentence, 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(F) second sentence. EPA is not taking action on this part of provision D–I.B.4 at this time at the request of Colorado. N/A .................................... D–I.C .............................. For any major statioN/Ary source requesting, or operating under, a Plantwide Applicability Limitation. Yes ................................. 51.166(a)(7)(v), 51.165(a)(2)(iii) ................ EPA is proposing approval for this provi- sion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–I.D .............................. An owner or operator undertaking a Pollution Control Project. No ................................... 51.166(a)(7)(vi), 51.165(a)(2)(iv) ............... EPA is not taking action on this provision at this time at the request of Colorado. 

72754 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules Provision location in Colo- rado’s current SIP Reg. 3 (N/A = not in current Colorado SIP) Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg. 3 Revision Provision description EPA proposing to incor- porate revision or addi- tion into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 Comment (if applicable see footnote) N/A .................................... D–II.A.2 .......................... Actuals PAL Definition ............................... Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(i) 51.165(f)(2)(i) .................... EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.4 .......................... Baseline Actual Emissions definition ........ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(47), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) ............. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.7 .......................... Begin Actual Construction definition ......... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(II), 51.165(a)(1)(xv) ................... EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.9 .......................... Clean Coal Technology definition ............. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(33), 51.165(a)(1)(xxiii) .............. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–I.II.A.10 ...................... Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project definition. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(34), 51.165(a)(1)(xxiv) .............. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.11 ........................ Clean Unit definition .................................. No ................................... 51.166(b)(41), 51.165(a)(1)(xxix) .............. EPA is not taking action on this definition at this time at the request of Colorado. N/A .................................... D–II.A.13 ........................ Construction definition ............................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(8), 51.165(a)(1)(xxviii) ............... EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.14 ........................ Emissions Unit definition (for PSD/NSR purposes). ......................................... 51.166(b)(7), 51.165(a)(1)(xvii) ................. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.15 ........................ Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit defi- nition. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(30), 51.165(a)(1)(xx) ................. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.17 ........................ High Terrain definition ............................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(25) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.18 ........................ Hydrocarbon Combustion Flare definition ......................................... 51.166(b)(31)(iv), 51.165(a)(1)(xx)(D) ....... EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.20 ........................ Low Terrain definition ................................ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(26) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.22 ........................ Major Emissions Unit definition ................. Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(iv), 51.165(f)(2)(iv) ............... EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.28 ........................ Nonattainment New Source Review defini- tion. Yes ................................. 51.165(a)(1)(xxx) ....................................... EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.29 ........................ PAL Effective Date definition .................... Yes ................................. 51.166(e)(2)(iv), 51.165(f)(2)(vi) ................ EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.30 ........................ PAL Effective Period definition .................. Yes ................................. 51.166(e)(2)(vii), 51.165(f)(2)(vii) .............. EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.31 ........................ PAL Major Modification definition .............. Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(viii), 51.165(f)(2)(viii) ............ EPA is proposing approval for this defini- tion. See footnote 1. N/A .................................... D–II.A.32 ........................ PAL Permit definition ................................. Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(ix), 51.165(f)(2)(ix) ............... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.33 ........................ PAL Pollutant definition ............................. Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(x), 51.165(f)(2)(x) ................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.34 ........................ Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL) 

definition.

Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(v), 51.165(f)(2)(v) ................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72755 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.35 ........................ Pollutant Control Project definition ............ No ................................... 51.166(b)(31), 51.165(a)(1)(xxv) ............... EPA is not taking action on this definition 

at this time at the request of Colorado. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.36 ........................ Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permit definition.

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(42), 51.165(a)(1)(xli) ................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.37 ........................ Project definition ........................................ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(51), 51.165(a)(1)(xxix) .............. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.38 ........................ Projected Actual Emissions definition ....... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(40), 51.165(a)(1)(xxviii) ............. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.39 ........................ Reactivation of Very Clean Coal-Fired 

EUSGU definition.

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(37) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.40 ........................ Regulated NSR Pollutant definition ........... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(49), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii) ............ EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.41 ........................ Replacement Unit definition ...................... Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(32), 51.165(a)(1)(xxi) ................ EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.42 ........................ Repowering definition ................................ Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(36) ............................................. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.45 ........................ Significant Emissions Increase definition .. Yes ................................. 51.166(b)((39), 51.165(a)(1)(xxvii) ............ EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.46 ........................ Significant Emissions Unit definition ......... Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(xi), 51.165(f)(2)(xi) ............... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.47 ........................ Small Emissions Unit definition ................. Yes ................................. 51.166(w)(2)(iii), 51.165(a)(1)(iii) ............... EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–II.A.48 ........................ Temporary Clean Coal Demonstration 

Project definition.

Yes ................................. 51.166(b)(35), 51.165(a)(1)(XXII) .............. EPA is proposing approval for this definition. 

See footnote 1. 

N/A .................................... D–XV .............................. Clean Units ................................................ No ................................... 51.166(t) and (u), 51.165(c) and (d) ......... EPA is not taking action on this section, 

at this time, at the request of Colorado. 

N/A .................................... D–XVI ............................. Pollution Control Projects .......................... No ................................... 51.166(v), 51.165(e) .................................. EPA is not taking action on this section, 

at this time, at the request of Colorado. 

N/A .................................... D–XVII ............................ Plantwide Applicability Limitations ............ Yes ................................. 51.166(v), 51.165(f) ................................... EPA is proposing approval for this section. 

The references in XVII.N.1.g and 

XVII.N.2.d of this section to ‘‘I.B.38. of Part A’’ are at A–I.B.53 in the current 

codified SIP. 

Colorado has revised D–SVII.I.2. (application deadline) to 12 months prior to expiration instead of 6 months. Colorado has revised XVII.N.1. (Semi-Annual Report) to require submission of 

QA/QC data as requested, not as part of the semi annual report specified in 51.166(w)(14)(i)(c). 

See footnote 1. 

Footnote 1: We are proposing to approve this new rule in Regulation No. 3 because the rule is identical or consistent with the Federal New Source Review regulations found at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 and contain no changes to the language that would effect the meaning of the rule. Footnote 2: We are proposing to approve this change of an existing Regulation No. 3 rule because the rule has only been renumbered, contains nonsubstantive changes to the rule that do not effect the meaning of 

the rule and/or has been modified to move a definition that has already been approved into the SIP to a specific rule section in which the definition applies. This renumbered rule and all subsections within this rule supersede and replace the prior numbered rule and subsections in Colorado’s federally approved SIP. 

Footnote 3: Colorado has marked this part of the definition of Major Modification as underlined, meaning that the State intends it will only be effective until EPA approves the NSR Reform revisions for incorporation 

into the SIP. Colorado has since clarified that they intended that this provision remain as part of the definition of Major Modification as it applies to PSD sources located in attainment areas only, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(j). If Colorado revises Regulation No. 3 to indicate this clarification prior to EPA taking final action, EPA proposes to approve this addition to the definition of Major Modification into the SIP. 

Footnote 4: Colorado’s SIP submittal deletes the following language in D–II.A.25.b from what is in the current codified SIP definition of Major Stationary Source (at A–I.B.58.a.): 

72756 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules In the Denver Metro PM10 nonattainment area, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides shall be treated as PM10 precursors, and any source which is major for these precursors is subject to the nonattainment new source review provisions. Additionally, a source causing or contributing to a violation of a NAAQS for any pollutant regulated under Section 110 of the Federal Act shall be considered major when it has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of that pollutant. The source will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation when the source exceeds the significance levels in the table under Section IV.D.3.d(ii), Part B. Such source is subject to the requirements of IV.D.3. Colorado’s deletion of the first sentence that refers to the Denver Metro PM10 nonattainment area could be proposed for approval by EPA since the Denver Metro area is now in attainment for PM–10. However, EPA is not proposing to approve D–II.A.25.b into the SIP at this time because of the deletion of the remaining language in the second and third sentences. Colorado has not provided a justification for the deletion of the second and third sentences. These sentences appear to provide a link between Colorado’s use of the phrase ‘‘significantly affect ambient air quality’’, as used in D–VI.D.1. of Regulation No. 3, and the phrase ‘‘cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS’’, as used in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(1). If Colorado revises Regulation No. 3 to add this deleted language back into the definition of Major Stationary Source prior to EPA taking final action, EPA proposes to approve this part of the definition of Major Stationary Source into the SIP. Otherwise the currently codified SIP language that is part of the definition of Major Stationary Source at 

A–I.B.58.a. will remain in the SIP. 

Footnote 5: EPA has discussed with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on how it intends to implement provisions D–V.A.7.c. and D–VI.B.5. without the terms ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ included as part of these provisions. CDPHE’s intent is that Colorado will implement the rule consistently with EPA’s policy and guidance. Additionally, CDPHE provided a letter to EPA dated Nov 28, 2005 that 

stated their intent is to also ‘‘request that the Commission make any revisions to Regulation No. 3 necessary to incorporate and implement federal program revisions should it be necessary for EPA to take further action on the remand of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, sections 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6).’’ Therefore, EPA proposes to approve Colorado’s rule without the terms ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ since Colorado 

will be implementing this rule provision in a manner consistent with EPA. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 72757 

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of Colorado’s revisions to Regulation 

No. 3, submitted by Colorado on July 11, 

2005 and October 25, 2005, that relate 

to the PSD and NSR construction 

permits program. These revisions meet 

the minimum program requirements of 

the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR 

Reform rulemaking. EPA will take 

action at a later date on the remaining 

revisions made by Colorado to 

Regulation No. 3 as adopted on April 

16, 2004 by the Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission. This future action 

will allow EPA to consider the complete 

Regulation No. 3 restructuring and other 

previously submitted SIP revision 

requests for Regulation No. 3. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule proposes to approve 

pre-existing requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it 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). 

Executive Order 13175 Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

This action also does not have 

federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 

Executive Order 13045 Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

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: November 28, 2005. 

Max H. Dodson, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 05–23712 Filed 12–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[OPP–2005–0240; FRL–7737–5] 

Pesticides; Revisions to Tolerance 

Exemptions for Polymers 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to remove 

the molecular weight limitations from 

the tolerance exemption expression for 

certain polymeric substances codified in 

40 CFR 180.960. These exemptions from 

the requirement of a tolerance were 

established based on the polymer’s 

meeting the criteria established by the 

Agency in 40 CFR 723.250, which 

define a low risk polymer. The Agency 

is acting on its own initiative. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number OPP–2005–0240, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Agency Website: EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public and comment system 

was replaced on November 25, 2005, by 

an enhanced federal-wide electronic 

docket management and comment 

system located at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention: Docket ID Number OPP–

2005–0240. 

• Mail: Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) 

(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,