+(,121/,1(

Citation: 64 Fed. Reg. 48731 1999 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu May 26 15:23:32 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

(iii) The meteorological conditions

existing 24 hours prior to and during the

exceedance;

(iv) For a particulate matter

exceedance, the 6-minute average

opacity monitoring data greater than

40% for the 24 hours prior to and

during the exceedance; and

(v) Proposed plant changes such as

operation or maintenance, if any, to

prevent future exceedances. Compliance

with this paragraph (f)(3)(v) shall not

excuse or otherwise constitute a defense

to any violations of this section or of

any law or regulation which such excess

emissions or malfunction may cause.

(4) Submit quarterly excess emissions

reports for sulfur dioxide and opacity as

recorded by CEMS and COMS together

with a CEMS data assessment report to

the Administrator no later than 30 days

after each calendar quarter. The owner

or operator shall complete the excess

emissions reports according to the

procedures in 40 CFR 60.7 (c) and (d)

and appendix F of 40 CFR part 60.

Excess opacity due to uncondensed

water vapor in the stack does not

constitute a reportable exceedence.

(g) Compliance Certifications.

Notwithstanding any other provision in

this implementation plan, the owner or

operator may use any credible evidence

or information relevant to whether a

source would have been in compliance

with applicable requirements if the

appropriate performance or compliance

test had been performed, for the purpose

of submitting compliance certifications.

(h) Equipment operations. The owner

or operator shall operate all equipment

or systems needed to comply with this

section in accordance with 40 CFR

60.11(d) and consistent with good

engineering practices to keep emissions

at or below the emissions limitations in

this section, and following outages of

any control equipment or systems the

control equipment or system will be

returned to full operation as

expeditiously as practicable.

(i) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding

any other provision in this

implementation plan, any credible

evidence or information relevant to

whether a source would have been in

compliance with applicable

requirements if the appropriate

performance or compliance test had

been performed, can be used to establish

whether or not a person has violated or

is in violation of any standard in the

plan.

(2) During periods of start-up and

shutdown the otherwise applicable

emission limits or requirements for

opacity and particulate matter shall not

apply provided that:

(i) At all times the facility is operated

in a manner consistent with good

practice for minimizing emissions, and

the owner or operator uses best efforts

regarding planning, design, and

operating procedures to meet the

otherwise applicable emission limit;

(ii) The frequency and duration of

operation in start-up or shutdown mode

are minimized to the maximum extent

practicable; and

(iii) The owner or operator's actions

during start-up and shutdown periods

are documented by properly signed,

contemporaneous operating logs, or

other relevant evidence.

(3) Emissions in excess of the level of

the applicable emission limit or

requirement that occur due to a

malfunction shall constitute a violation

of the applicable emission limit.

However, it shall be an affirmative

defense in an enforcement action

seeking penalties if the owner or

operator has met with all of the

following conditions:

(i) The malfunction was the result of

a sudden and unavoidable failure of

process or air pollution control

equipment and did not result from

inadequate design or construction of the

process or air pollution control

equipment;

(ii) The malfunction did not result

from operator error or neglect, or from

improper operation or maintenance

procedures;

(iii) The excess emissions were not

part of a recurring pattern indicative of

inadequate design, operation, or

maintenance;

(iv) Steps were immediately taken to

correct conditions leading to the

malfunction, and the amount and

duration of the excess emissions caused

by the malfunction were minimized to

the maximum extent practicable;

(v) All possible steps were taken to

minimize the impact of the excess

emissions on ambient air quality;

(vi) All emissions monitoring systems

were kept in operation if at all possible;

and

(vii) The owner or operator's actions

in response to the excess emissions

were documented by properly signed,

contemporaneous operating logs, or

other relevant evidence.

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 7671, et seq.

Subpart D-Arizona

2. Subpart D is proposed to be

amended by adding § 52.141 to read as

follows:

§52.141 Federal Implementation Plan for

Navajo Generating Station, Navajo Nation.

The Federal Implementation Plan

regulating emissions from the Navajo

Generating Station near Page, Arizona is

codified at 40 CFR 49.20.

[FR Doc. 99 23276 Filed 9 7 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 49 and 52

[FRL-6432-6]

RIN 2060-AF42

Source Specific Federal

Implementation Plan for Four Corners

Power Plant; Navajo Nation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) proposes to promulgate a

source-specific Federal Implementation

Plan (FIP) to regulate emissions from the

Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP), a

coal-fired power plant located on the

Navajo Indian Reservation near

Farmington, New Mexico.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Douglas K. McDaniel,

Air Division (AIR-8), U.S. EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

CA 94105-3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas K. McDaniel, Air Division

(AIR-8), U.S. EPA Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-3901, (415) 744-1246.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Action

B. Facility

C. Attainment

D. Jurisdictional Issue

II. Basis for Proposed Action

A. EPA's Authority to Promulgate a FIP in

Indian Country

B. Relation to Tribal Authority Rule

III. Four Corners Power Plant Facility

Description

IV. Summary of FIP Provisions

A. State Standards

B. Acid Rain Program Requirements

C. Proposed FIP Standards

48731
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

D. Summary of Changes From State

Standards

E. Compliance Schedule

V. Solicitation of Comments

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Background

A. Action

In today's action, EPA proposes to

federalize standards from the New

Mexico state implementation plan (SIP)

applicable to the FCPP. Where

necessary, EPA's proposed emission

standards and associated requirements

modify those extracted from New

Mexico's regulatory programs to ensure

comprehensive emission control and

federal consistency.

B. Facility

FCPP is a privately owned and

operated coal-fired power plant located

on the Navajo Indian Reservation near

Farmington, New Mexico. Through

lease agreements, the facility utilizes

real property held in trust by the federal

government for the Navajo Nation. The

facility operates five units with a total

capacity in excess of 2000 megawatts

(MW). Operations at the facility produce

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2),

nitrogen dioxide (NOx) and particulate

matter (PM).

C. Attainment

FCPP is located in the Four Corners

Interstate air quality control region

(AQCR), which is designated attainment

for all criteria pollutants under the

Clean Air Act (CAA or "the Act"). 40

CFR 81.332. As the proposed FCPP FIP

merely federalizes the regulatory

scheme with which the plant has been

complying, EPA believes that air

quality, and hence the attainment status,

in this area will not be negatively

impacted by this action.'

D. Jurisdictional Issue

Historically, emissions of air

pollutants from the FCPP facility have

1

A different conclusion may be reached by EPA,

however, if, for example, there were evidence that

the source to be regulated by the FIP is causing or

contributing to violations of the applicable NAAQS,

or was located in an area that is designated

nonattainment for such NAAQS.

been regulated under provisions of the

New Mexico air pollution control

program, in accordance with the New

Mexico SIP. However, States are

generally precluded from enforcing their

civil regulatory programs on Tribal

lands, absent an explicit Congressional

authorization or State-Tribal agreement.

See California v. Cabazon Band of

Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987).

Both the Navajo Nation and members

of the regulated community have

queried EPA concerning the

jurisdictional issue of who has authority

under the Act to regulate air emissions

from FCPP. Upon review of the

circumstances surrounding the location

and operation of FCPP on the Navajo

Indian Reservation, EPA concluded that

jurisdiction under the Act over this

facility lies with EPA and the Navajo

Nation. EPA met with representatives of

the State of New Mexico, the Navajo

Nation and FCPP to discuss this

jurisdictional issue. All parties have

expressed agreement with this

conclusion.

II. Basis for Proposed Action

A. EPA's Authority to Promulgate a FIP

in Indian Country

EPA's conclusion that CAA

jurisdiction over FCPP lies with EPA

and the Navajo Nation necessarily leads

to the conclusion that a regulatory gap

exists with regard to this facility. EPA

is thus proposing to remedy this gap

with a source-specific FIP. This FIP will

in essence federalize the New Mexico

SIP requirements with which the facility

has been complying.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 greatly expanded the role of Indian

tribes in implementing the provisions of

the Clean Air Act in Indian country.

Section 301(d) of the Act authorizes

EPA to issue regulations specifying the

provisions of the Clean Air Act for

which Indian tribes may be treated in

the same manner as states. See CAA

sections 301(d)(1) and (2). EPA

promulgated the final rule under section

301(d) of the Act, entitled "Indian

Tribes: Air Quality Planning and

Management," on February 12, 1998. 63

FR 7254. The rule is generally referred

to as the "Tribal Authority Rule" or

"TAR".

In the preamble to the proposed 2 and

final rule, EPA discusses generally the

legal basis under the CAA by which

EPA and tribes are authorized to

regulate sources of air pollution in

Indian country. EPA concluded that the

CAA constitutes a statutory grant of

jurisdictional authority to Indian tribes

2 See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994).

that allows them to develop air

programs for EPA approval in the same

manner as states. 63 FR at 7254-7259;

59 FR 43958-43960.

EPA also concluded that the CAA

authorizes EPA to protect air quality

throughout Indian country, including on

fee lands. See 63 FR 7262; 59 FR 43960-

43961 (citing to CAA sections 101(b)(1),

301(a), and 301(d)). In fact, in

promulgating the TAR, EPA specifically

provided that, pursuant to the

discretionary authority explicitly

granted to EPA under sections 301(a)

and 301(d)(4) of the Act, EPA 63 FR at

7273 (codified at 40 CFR49.11(a)).3

"shall promulgate without unreasonable

delay such federal implementation plan

provisions as are necessary or appropriate to

protect air quality, consistent with the

provisions of sections 304(a) and 301(d)(4), if

a tribe does not submit a tribal

implementation plan meeting the

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,

Appendix V, or does not receive EPA

approval of a submitted tribal

implementation plan."

It is EPA's policy to aid tribes in

developing comprehensive and effective

air quality management programs by

providing technical and other assistance

to them. EPA recognizes, however, that

just as it required many years to develop

state and federal programs to cover

lands subject to state jurisdiction, it will

also require time to develop tribal and

federal programs to cover reservations

and other lands subject to tribal

jurisdiction. 59 FR at 43961.

The Navajo Nation has expressed a

strong interest in seeking authority

under the TAR to regulate sources of air

pollution located on the Reservation

under the Clean Air Act. Based on

discussions with the Tribe, however,

EPA believes that it will be at least

several months before the Tribe will be

ready to seek authority under the TAR

to assume Clean Air Act planning

responsibilities and that, when they do

so, the Tribe intends to build its

capacity and seek authority for the

various Clean Air Act programs over

time, rather than all at once. The Tribe

has advised EPA that it continues to

support EPA's efforts to impose such

controls on FCPP as are necessary to

3In the preamble to the final TAR, EPA explained

that it believed it was inappropriate to treat tribes

in the same manner as States with respect to section

110(c) of the Act, which directs EPA to promulgate

a FIP within two years after EPA finds a state has

failed to submit a complete state plan or within two

years after EPA disapproval of a state plan.

Although EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP

within the two year period for tribes, EPA

promulgated 40 CFR 49.1 l(a) to clarify that EPA

will continue to be subject to the basic requirement

to issue any necessary or appropriate FIP provisions

for affected tribal areas within some reasonable

time. See 63FR 7264 7265.

48732
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

ensure continued compliance with the

substantive requirements of the New

Mexico SIP, notwithstanding the recent

promulgation of the TAR.

Therefore, in this proposed FIP, EPA

is exercising its discretionary authority

under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of

the CAA and 40 CFR49.11(a) to

promulgate a federal implementation

plan in order to remedy an existing

regulatory gap under the Act with

respect to FCPP. Although the facility

has been historically regulated by New

Mexico since its construction, the state

lacks jurisdiction over the facility or its

owners or operators for CAA

compliance or enforcement purposes.

The Tribe has not submitted a tribal

implementation plan to address

emissions from FCPP and has indicated

to EPA that it prefers to have EPA

address the emissions from FCPP at this

time. Since the Navajo Nation does not

presently have a federally approved TIP,

in the absence of a comprehensive FIP

the applicable regulatory requirements

arising under state law would not be

enforceable. EPA's FIP will federalize

requirements applicable to FCPP

contained in the New Mexico SIP. Given

the magnitude of the emissions from the

plant, EPA believes that the proposed

FIP provisions are both necessary and

appropriate to protect air quality on the

Reservation.

B. Relation to Tribal Authority Rule

As discussed above, under Section

301(d) of the Act, a tribe may develop

and implement one or more of its own

air quality programs under the Act

through a Tribal Air Program. On

February 12, 1998, EPA promulgated

regulations under Section 301(d) of the

Act which provide the framework for

tribes to obtain authority to administer

federally-approved and federallyenforceable programs under the Act,

including tribal implementation plans.

See 59 FR 43956, August 25, 1994

(proposed rule) and 63 FR 7254,

February 12, 1998 (final rule).

The Navajo Nation now has the

option of assuming responsibility for the

development and implementation of

federally enforceable air quality

programs under the Clean Air Act. Until

a federally approved Navajo Nation TIP

is in place with regulations which cover

FCPP, however, EPA has exclusive

jurisdiction to regulate the source under

the Act. Once final, the regulations

proposed today will remain in effect

until a TIP governing FCPP is in place

and the FIP is withdrawn.

III. Four Corners Power Plant-Facility

Description

The FCPP is a 2040 MW coal-fired

power plant located on the Navajo

Indian Reservation near Farmington,

New Mexico. The FCPP consists of three

190 to 253 MW units and two 818 MW

units all of which became operational

between 1962 and 1970. The Arizona

Public Service Company (APS) is the

operating agent for FCPP which is

jointly owned by the APS, the Southern

California Edison Company, the Salt

River Project Agricultural Improvement

and Power District (SRP), the Public

Service Company of New Mexico, the El

Paso Electric Company and the Tucson

Electric Power Company. Existing

pollution control equipment at FCPP

units 4 and 5 includes baghouses and

lime spray towers for SO 2 control and

specific burners designed for NOx

control. Units 1, 2 and 3 each have a

venturi scrubber for particulate and SO 2

control.

IV. Summary of FIP Provisions

A. State Standards

The standards in this FIP proposal are

generally based on the state standards

under which the facility has been

operating (FCPP must also continue to

comply with all applicable federal

requirements). These standards, derived

from the New Mexico SIP, are

summarized as follows:

1. SO 2 emissions are limited to 28

percent of the SO 2 produced in coal

burning or 17,900 pounds per hour

based on an averaged three hour period

(AQCR 602).

2. Particulate emissions are limited to

0.05 pounds per million BTU (AQCR

504).

3. Excess emissions notification

requirements are specified (AQCR 801).

B. Acid Rain Program Requirements

The Federal Acid Rain Program

requires that low-NOx burners be

installed on all five units. By the year

2000, Units 1, 2 and 3 (wall-fired

boilers) must comply with a .46 lb/

MMbtu annual average of NOx. Units 4

and 5 (cell-fired boilers) must meet a

limit of .68 lb/MMbtu.

Emissions of SO 2 are regulated

through an allowance system. FCPP has

sufficient allowances to cover current

emissions.

C. Proposed FIP Standards

1. SO2 emissions are not to exceed 28

percent of the SO 2 produced in the

burning of sulfur-bearing coal (averaged

over successive thirty boiler operating

day periods station-wide) and not to

exceed 17,900 pounds of total SO 2 per

hour averaged over any consecutive

three hour period station-wide.

2. Particulate emissions are not to

exceed 0.050 pounds per million BTU of

heat input.

3. Opacity is limited to 20 percent

averaged over a six minute period, for

Units 4 and 5.

4. APS will develop a plan to monitor,

record and report operating parameters

indicative of good operation of the

scrubbers for control of particulate

matter on Units 1, 2, and 3.

5. Nitrogen oxides are not to exceed

0.85 pounds per million BTU of input

for Units 1 and 2, and 0.65 pounds per

million BTU of input for Units 3, 4, and

5, averaged over any successive 30

boiler operating day period; nor shall

they exceed 335,000 lb per 24-hour

period on a station-wide basis. When

any one unit is not operating, the limits

are reduced by 1542 pounds per hour

for units 1, 2, and 3, and by 4667

pounds per hour for units 4 and 5.

D. Summary of Changes From State

Standards

1. The NOx requirements are more

stringent than those contained in the

New Mexico SIP. These requirements

were submitted to EPA, Region 6, on

November 4, 1991 as a New Mexico SIP

revision, and were not acted on as the

SIP has no effect over FCPP.

2. The SIP particulate emissions

sampling methods, which were based in

part on an analysis of fine particulates,

have been changed to EPA methods

referenced in federal code (40 CFR part

60, appendix A, Methods 1-5). The fine

particulate analysis was not being

routinely performed and the EPA

methods were in use at the facility.

Further, EPA believes that the

particulate matter limit is the more

stringent of the two emission limits.

3. The standard for opacity has been

added in order to confirm Units 4 and

5 are in continuous compliance and are

properly operated and maintained.

These units operate with baghouses for

particulate control and therefore are

able to meet this limit.

4. The opacity limit is not being

applied to Units 1, 2 and 3. The

scrubbers currently in operation on

Units 1, 2 and 3 were designed for

control of particulate, and were later

redesigned to also control sulfur

dioxide. However, FCPP cannot

currently meet a continuous opacity

limit of 20 percent at Units 1, 2 and 3.

EPA is proposing that FCPP design and

enact a plan to monitor operating

parameters such as pressure drop and

scrubber liquid flow for the scrubbers.

This will yield information about

continuous proper operation of the

48733
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

scrubbers for particulate control. This

information could then be used to

determine appropriate parameters,

which could be included in FCPP's Title

V permit as indicators for good

particulate matter control practice.

5. The standard for SO2 is unchanged

but the method of compliance

determination has been changed to a

method based on CEM rather than on

stack sampling.

6. A number of other changes were

made relative to the New Mexico SIP

making the FIP specific to FCPP, and to

conform to EPA excess emissions and

other reporting and quality assurance

procedures.

E. Compliance Schedule

The EPA proposes that the

requirements contained in this proposal

become effective upon promulgation of

these regulations, since the emission

limits established by the proposed FIP

are presently being achieved at the

facility.

V. Solicitation of Comments

The EPA solicits comments on all

aspects of today's proposal to

promulgate a FIP to regulate air

emissions from FCPP. Interested parties

should submit comments to the address

listed in the front of this proposed rule.

Public comments postmarked by

October 8, 1999 will be considered in

the final action taken by EPA.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,

58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), all

"regulatory actions" that are "significant" are subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review

and the requirements of the Executive

Order. A "regulatory action" is defined

as "any substantive action by an agency

(normally published in the Federal

Register) that promulgates or is

expected to result in the promulgation

of a final rule or regulation, including

* * * notices of proposed rulemaking."

A "regulation or rule" is defined as "an

agency statement of general

applicability and future effect, * *

The proposed FIP is not subject to

OMB review under E.O. 12866 because

it applies to only a single, specifically

named facility and is therefore not a

rule of general applicability. Thus, it is

not a "regulatory action" under E.O.

12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000. The

federal implementation plan for the

Four Corners Power Plant proposed

today does not impose any new

requirements on small entities. See MidTex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC,

773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's

certification need only consider the

rule's impact on entities subject to the

requirements of the rule). Therefore,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA

certifies that today's action does not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of those terms for

RFA purposes.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 04-4,

establishes requirements for federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on state, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed rules and for final

rules for which EPA published a notice

of proposed rulemaking, if those rules

contain "federal mandates" that may

result in the expenditure by state, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. If section 202

requires a written statement, section 205

of UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives.

Under section 205, EPA must adopt the

least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule, unless the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why EPA did not

adopt that alternative. The provisions of

section 205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Section 204 of UMRA requires EPA to

develop a process to allow elected

officers of state, local, and tribal

governments (or their designated,

authorized employees), to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals containing significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates.

EPA has determined that the

proposed FIP contains no federal

mandates on state, local or tribal

governments, because it will not impose

any enforceable duties on any of these

entities. EPA further has determined

that the proposed FIP is not likely to

result in the expenditure of $100

million or more by the private sector in

any one year. Although the proposed

FIP would impose enforceable duties on

an entity in the private sector, the costs

are expected to be minimal.

Consequently, sections 202, 204, and

205 of UMRA do not apply to the

proposed FIP.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, it

must have developed under section 203

of UMRA a small government agency

plan. The plan must provide for

notifying potentially affected small

governments, enabling officials of

affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that the

proposed FIP will not significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

because it imposes no requirements on

small governments. Therefore, the

requirements of section 203 do not

apply to the proposed FIP. Nonetheless,

EPA worked closely with

representatives of the Tribe in the

development of today's proposed action.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must

approve all "collections of information"

by EPA. The Act defines "collection of

information" as a requirement for

"answers to * * * identical reporting or

recordkeeping requirements imposed on

ten or more persons * * * ." 44 U.S.C.

3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP

only applies to one company, the

Paperwork Reduction Act does not

apply.

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

This executive order applies to any

rule that: (1) Is determined to be

"economically significant" as that term

is defined in E.O. 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

48734
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by the

Agency.

EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying

only to those regulatory actions that are

based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5-

501 of the Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. The FCPP FIP

is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it

implements previously promulgated

health or safety-based federal standards.

F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a state, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, any written communications

from the governments, and EPA's

position supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

state, local and tribal governments "to

provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates."

As stated above, the proposed FIP will

not create a mandate on state, local or

tribal governments because it will not

impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements

of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875

do not apply to this rule. Nonetheless,

EPA worked closely with

representatives of the Tribe during the

development of today's proposed action.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governm ents

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA's

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments "to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities."

The proposed FIP does not impose

substantial direct compliance costs on

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. The proposed FIP imposes

obligations only on the owner or

operator of FCPP. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and

A dvancem ent Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law

104-113, 12 (10 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by the voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through annual

reports to OMB, with explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

Consistent with the NTTAA, the

Agency conducted a search to identify

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards (VCS). For the

measurement of the sulfur in the coal

for calculating the efficiency of the SO 2

scrubbers for FCCP, EPA proposes to

require use of ASTM standards. FCCP

would have the ability to choose an

applicable ASTM standard for both the

coal sample collection and the sulfur in

coal analysis.

Another consensus standard, ASTM

D6216-98, appears to be practical for

use in lieu of EPA Performance

Specification 1 (see 40 CFR part 60,

appendix B) for the opacity monitoring

to be required for this facility. On

September 23, 1998, EPA proposed

incorporating by reference ASTM

D6216-98 into Performance

Specification 1 under a separate

rulemaking (63 FR 50824) that would

allow broader use and application of

this consensus standard. EPA plans to

complete this action in the near future.

As it would be impractical for EPA to

act independently from rulemaking

activity already undergoing notice and

comment, EPA defers taking action in

the current rulemaking that would

immediately adopt D6216-98, and we

will therefore require use of EPA

Performance Specification 1 in the

interim.

In regard to the remaining

measurement needs as listed below,

there are a number of voluntary

consensus standards that appear to have

possible use in lieu of the EPA test

methods and performance specifications

(40 CFR part 60 appendices A and B)

noted next to the measurement

requirements. It would not be practical

to specify these standards in the current

rulemaking due to a lack of sufficient

data on equivalency and validation and

because some are still under

development. However, EPA's Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards is

in the process of reviewing all available

VCS for incorporation by reference into

the test methods and performance

specifications of 40 CFR part 60,

appendices A and B. Any VCS so

incorporated in a specified test method

or performance specification would

then be available for use in determining

the emissions from this facility. This

will be an ongoing process designed to

incorporate suitable VCS as they

become available.

Particulate Matter Emissions-EPA

Methods 1 through 5.

Opacity-EPA Method 9 and

Performance Specification Test 1 for

Opacity Monitoring.

SO 2 -EPA Method 6C and

Performance Specification 2 for

Continuous SO 2 Monitoring.

NOx-EPA Method 7E and

Performance Specification 2 for

Continuous NOx Monitoring and

Performance Specification 6 for Flow

Monitoring.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 49

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Indians,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

48735
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: August 27, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Title 40 chapter I of the Code of

Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 49-TRIBAL CLEAN AIR ACT

AUTHORITY

1. The authority citation for part 49

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 49 is proposed to be amended

by adding § 49.21 to read as follows:

§49.21 Federal Implementation Plan

Provisions for Four Corners Power Plant,

Navajo Nation.

(a) Applicability. The provisions of

this section shall apply to each owner

or operator of the coal burning

equipment designated as Units 1, 2, 3,

4, and 5 at the Four Corners Power Plant

("the Plant") in the Navajo Indian

Reservation located in the Four Corners

Interstate Air Quality Control Region

(see 40 CFR 81.121).

(b) Compliance Dates. Compliance

with the requirements of this section is

required upon promulgation unless

otherwise indicated by compliance

dates contained in specific provisions.

(c) Definitions. For the purposes of

this section:

(1) A dm inistrator means the

Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) or his/her

authorized representative.

(2)Affirmative defense means, in the

context of an enforcement proceeding, a

response or defense put forward by a

defendant, regarding which the

defendant has the burden of proof, and

the merits of which are independently

and objectively evaluated in a judicial

or administrative proceeding.

(3) A irpollution control equipm ent

includes baghouses, particulate or

gaseous scrubbers, and any other

apparatus utilized to control emissions

of regulated air contaminants which

would be emitted to the atmosphere.

(4) Boiler operating day means a 24-

hour period during which coal is

combusted in a Unit for the entire 24

hours.

(5) Daily average means the arithmetic

average of the hourly values measured

in a 24-hour period.

(6) Excess emissions means the

emissions of air contaminants in excess

of an applicable emissions limitation or

requirement.

(7) Heat input means heat derived

from combustion of fuel in a Unit and

does not include the heat input from

preheated combustion air, recirculated

flue gases, or exhaust gases from other

sources.

(8)Malfunction means any sudden

and unavoidable failure of air pollution

control equipment or process equipment

or of a process to operate in a normal

or usual manner. Failures that are

caused entirely or in part by poor

maintenance, careless operation, or any

other preventable upset condition or

preventable equipment breakdown shall

not be considered malfunctions.

(9) Owner or Operator means any

person who owns, leases, operates,

controls, or supervises the Plant or any

of the coal burning equipment

designated as Units 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 at the

Plant.

(10) Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) means

the sum of nitric oxide (NO) and

nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) in the flue gas,

expressed as nitrogen dioxide.

(11) Shutdown means the cessation of

operation of any air pollution control

equipment, process equipment, or

process for any purpose. Specifically,

for Units 1, 2, or 3, shutdown begins

when the unit drops below 40 MW net

load with the intent to remove the unit

from service. For Units 4 or 5, shutdown

begins when the unit drops below 300

MW net load with the intent to remove

the unit from service.

(12) Startup means the setting into

operation of any air pollution control

equipment, process equipment, or

process for any purpose. Specifically,

for Units 1, 2,or 3, startup ends when

the unit reaches 40 MW net load. For

Units 4 or 5, startup ends when the unit

reaches 400 MW net load.

(13) Station -wide basis means total

stack emissions of any particular

pollutant from all coal burning

equipment at the Plant.

(14) 24-hourperiod means the period

of time between 12:01 a.m. and 12:00

midnight.

(d) Emissions Standards.-(1) Sulfur

Dioxide. No owner or operator shall

discharge or cause the discharge of

sulfur dioxide (SO 2) into the atmosphere

in excess of:

(i) 28% of that which is produced by

the Plant's coal burning equipment,

averaged over any successive thirty (30)

boiler operating day period, determined

on a station-wide basis; and

(ii) 17,900 pounds of total sulfur

dioxide emissions per hour averaged

over any consecutive three (3) hour

period, determined on a station-wide

basis.

(2) Particulate Matter. No owner or

operator shall discharge or cause the

discharge of particulate matter from any

coal burning equipment into the

atmosphere in excess of 0.050 pound

per million British thermal unit (lb/

MMBtu) of heat input (higher heating

value), as averaged over six (6) hours of

sampling.

(3) Opacity. No owner or operator

shall discharge or cause the discharge of

emissions from the stacks of Units 4 and

5 into the atmosphere exhibiting greater

than 20% opacity, excluding water

vapor, averaged over any six (6) minute

period (except for one six (6) minute

period per hour of not more than 27%

opacity, excluding water vapor).

(4) Oxides of nitrogen. No owner or

operator shall discharge or cause the

discharge of NOx into the atmosphere:

(i) From either Unit 1 or 2 in excess

of 0.85 lb/MMBtu of heat input per unit,

and from either Units 3, 4, or 5 in excess

of 0.65 lb/MMBtu of heat input per unit

averaged over any successive thirty (30)

boiler operating day period;

(ii) In excess of 335,000 lb per 24-hour

period when coal burning equipment is

operating, on a station-wide basis; for

each hour when coal burning equipment

is not operating, this limitation shall be

reduced. If the unit which is not

operating is Unit 1, 2, or 3, the

limitation shall be reduced by 1,542 lb

per hour for each unit which is not

operating. If the unit which is not

operating is Unit 4 or 5, the limitation

shall be reduced by 4,667 lb per hour for

each unit which is not operating.

(e) Testing and monitoring. Upon

completion of the installation of

continuous emissions monitoring

systems (CEMS) software as required in

this section, compliance with the

emissions limits set for SO 2 and NOx

shall be determined by using data from

a CEMS unless otherwise specified in

paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4) of this

section. Compliance with the emissions

limit set for particulate matter shall be

determined annually, or at such other

time as requested by the Administrator,

based on data from testing conducted in

accordance with 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, Methods 1 through 5, or

any other method receiving prior

approval from the Administrator. Upon

completion of the installation of

continuous opacity monitoring systems

(COMS) software as required in this

regulation, compliance with the

emissions limits set for opacity shall be

determined by using data from a COMS

except during saturated stack conditions

(condensed water vapor). If the

baghouse is operating within its normal

operating parameters and a high opacity

reading occurs it will be presumed that

the occurrence was caused by saturated

stack conditions and shall not be

considered an excess emission.

48736
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

(1) The owner or operator shall

maintain and operate CEMS for S0 2 , NO

or NOx, a diluent and, for Units 4 and

5 only, COMS, in accordance with 40

CFR 60.8 and 60.13, and appendix B of

40 CFR part 60. Within six (6) months

of promulgation of this regulation, the

owner or operator shall install CEMS

and COMS software which complies

with the requirements of this regulation.

The owner or operator of the Plant may

petition the Administrator for extension

of the six (6) month period for good

cause shown. Completion of 40 CFR

part 75 monitor certification

requirements shall be deemed to satisfy

the requirements under 40 CFR 60.8 and

60.13 and appendix B of part 60. The

owner or operator shall comply with the

quality assurance procedures for CEMS

found in 40 CFR part 75, and all reports

required thereunder shall be submitted

to the Administrator. The owner or

operator shall provide the Administrator

notice in accordance with 40 CFR 75.61.

(2) Sulfur Dioxide. (i) For the purpose

of determining compliance with this

section, the sulfur dioxide inlet rate (in

lb/MMBtu) shall be calculated using the

daily average percent sulfur and Btu

content of the coal combusted. The inlet

sulfur concentration and Btu content

shall be determined in accordance with

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) methods or any other

method receiving prior approval from

the Administrator. The analyses shall be

done on as fired daily fuel samples

collected before the coal pulverizers

using ASTM methods or any other

method receiving prior approval from

the Administrator. The inlet sulfur

dioxide concentration shall be

calculated using the following formula:

Is = 2(% Sf)/GCV x 104 English units

Where:

is = sulfur dioxide inlet concentrations

in pounds per million Btu;

% Sf= weight percent sulfur content of

the fuel; and

GCV = Gross calorific value for the fuel

in Btu per pound.

(ii) The outlet SO 2 emissions shall be

determined from CEMS data gathered in

accordance with this section.

(3) Particulate Matter. Particulate

matter testing shall be conducted

annually and at least six (6) months

apart, with the equipment within 90%

of maximum operation in accordance

with 40 CFR 60.8 and appendix A to 40

CFR part 60. The owner or operator may

test Units 1 and 2 together when both

units are operating or may test them

separately when one unit is out of

service since Units 1 and 2 share a

common stack. The owner or operator

shall submit written notice of the date

of testing no later than 21 days prior to

testing. Testing may be performed on a

date other than that already provided in

a notice as long as notice of the new

date is provided either in writing or by

telephone or other means acceptable to

the Administrator, and the notice is

provided as soon as practicable after the

new testing date is known, but no later

than 7 days (or a shorter period as

approved by the Administrator) in

advance of the new date of testing.

(4) Oxides of nitrogen. The total daily

station-wide oxides of nitrogen

emissions in pounds of NO 2 per day

shall be calculated using the following

formula:

TE lj 1JEjXH i=l j=l

Where:

TE = total station-wide nitrogen dioxide

emissions (lb N0 2/day);

Ei hourly average emissions rate of

each unit (lb NO2/MMBtu);

HIJ hourly total heat input for each

unit (MMBtu);

n the number of units of coal burning

equipment operating during the

hour;

m the number of operating hours in

a day, from midnight to midnight.

(5) Continuous emissions monitoring

shall apply during all periods of

operation of the coal burning

equipment, including periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction, except for

CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration

checks, and zero and span adjustments.

Continuous monitoring systems for

measuring sulfur dioxide, NOx, and

diluent gas shall complete a minimum

of one cycle of operation (sampling,

analyzing, and data recording) for each

successive 15-minute period. The onehour averages shall be calculated using

these data points. At least two data

points must be used to calculate the

one-hour averages. When emission data

are not obtained because of continuous

monitoring system breakdowns, repairs,

calibration checks, or zero and span

adjustments, emission data must be

obtained by using other monitoring

systems approved by the EPA to provide

emission data for a minimum of 18

hours in at least 22 out of 30 successive

boiler operating days. NOx emissions

rates and quantities shall be reported as

NO 2 concentrations. When CEMS data is

not available because of malfunctions,

the unavailable NOx data will be

replaced with a calculated value based

on the average of the last valid data

point and the next valid data point for

purposes of calculating total stationwide nitrogen dioxide emissions.

(6) The owner or operator shall

maintain two sets of opacity filters for

each type of COMS, one set to be used

as calibration standards and one set to

be used as audit standards. At least one

set of filters shall be on site at all times.

(7) Nothing herein shall limit EPA's

ability to ask for a test at any time under

section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42

U.S.C. 7414, and enforce against any

violation.

(8) In order to provide reasonable

assurance that the scrubbers for control

of particulate matter from Units 1, 2,

and 3 are being maintained and

operated in a manner consistent with

good air pollution control practice for

minimizing emissions, the owner or

operator shall comply with the

following provisions:

(i) The owner or operator shall

develop a plan to monitor, record, and

report parameter(s) indicative of the

proper operation of the scrubbers to

provide a reasonable assurance of

compliance with the particulate matter

limits in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

The owner or operator shall submit this

plan to the Administrator no later than

December 31, 1999. The owner or

operator shall implement this plan

within 30 days of approval by the

Administrator and shall commence

reporting the data generated pursuant to

the monitoring plan in accordance with

the schedule in paragraph (e)(8)(v) of

this section.

(ii) In the event that the owner or

operator is unable to develop the plan

required in paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this

section due to technical difficulties,

fails to submit the plan by December 31,

1999, or the Administrator disapproves

the plan, the owner or operator shall

install and operate devices to measure

the pressure drop across each scrubber

module and the total flow of scrubbing

liquid to the venturi section of each

scrubber module. The data from these

instruments shall be monitored and

recorded electronically. A minimum of

one reading every 15 minutes shall be

used to calculate an hourly average

which shall be recorded and stored for

at least a five-year period. The owner or

operator shall report in an electronic

format either all hourly data, or onehour averages deviating by more than

30% from the levels measured during

the last particulate matter stack test that

demonstrated compliance with the limit

in this regulation. The owner or

operator shall implement this

requirement no later than February 28,

2000 if it fails to submit the plan by

December 31, 1999; or no later than 60

days after the Administrator's

disapproval of the plan.

48737
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

(iii) The monitoring required under

paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and (e)(8)(ii) of this

section shall apply to each Unit at all

times that the Unit is operating, except

for monitoring malfunctions, associated

repairs, and required quality assurance

or control activities (including, as

applicable, calibration checks and

required zero and span adjustments). A

monitoring malfunction is any sudden,

infrequent, not reasonably preventable

failure of the monitoring to provide

valid data. Monitoring failures that are

caused in part by poor maintenance or

careless operation are not malfunctions.

(iv) The owner or operator may

petition the Administrator for an

extension of the December 31, 1999

deadline. Such extension shall be

granted only if the owner or operator

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

Administrator that:

(A) The delay is due to technical

infeasibility beyond the control of the

owner or operator; and

(B) The requested extension, if

granted, will allow the owner or

operator to successfully complete the

plan.

(v) The owner or operator shall

submit to the Administrator reports of

the monitoring data required by this

regulation quarterly. The reports shall

be postmarked within 30 days of the

end of each calendar quarter.

(vi) The owner or operator shall

develop and document a quality

assurance program for the monitoring

and recording instrumentation. This

program shall be updated or improved

as requested by the Administrator.

(vii) In the event that a program for

parameter monitoring on Units 1, 2, and

3 is approved pursuant to the

Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule,

40 CFR part 64, such program will

supersede the provisions contained in

paragraph (e)(8) of this section.

(f) Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. Unless otherwise stated

all requests, reports, submittals,

notifications, and other communications

to the Administrator required by this

section shall be submitted to the

Director, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code:

AIR-5, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California, 94105, (415) 744-

1138, (415) 744-1076 (facsimile). For

each unit subject to the emissions

limitation in this regulation and upon

completion of the installation of CEMS

and COMS as required in this

regulation, the owner or operator shall

comply with the following

requirements:

(1) For each emissions limit in this

regulation, comply with the notification

and recordkeeping requirements for

CEMS compliance monitoring in 40 CFR

60.7(c) and (d), and the CEMS data

assessment report requirements of 40

CFR part 75.

(2) Furnish the Administrator with

reports describing the results of the

annual particulate matter emissions

tests postmarked within sixty (60) days

of completing the tests. Each report

shall include the following information:

(i) The test date;

(ii) The test method;

(iii) Identification of the coal burning

equipment tested;

(iv) Values for stack pressure,

temperature, moisture, and distribution

of velocity heads;

(v) Average heat input;

(vi) Emissions data, identified by

sample number, and expressed in

pounds per MMBtu;

(vii) Arithmetic average of sample

data expressed in pounds per MMBtu;

and

(viii) A description of any variances

from the test method.

(3) Excess emissions report. (i) For

excess emissions, the owner or operator

shall notify the Administrator by

telephone or in writing within one

business day ("initial notification"). A

complete written report of the incident

shall be submitted to the Administrator

within ten (10) business days of the

initial notification. The complete

written report shall include:

(A) The name and title of the person

reporting;

(B) The identity and location of the

Plant and Unit(s) involved, and the

emissions point(s), including bypass,

from which the excess emissions

occurred or are occurring;

(C) The time and duration or expected

duration of the excess emissions;

(D) The magnitude of the excess

emissions expressed in the units of the

applicable emissions limitation and the

operating data and calculations used in

determining the magnitude of the excess

emissions;

(E) The nature of the condition

causing the excess emissions and the

reasons why excess emissions occurred

or are occurring;

(F) If the excess emissions were the

result of a malfunction, the steps taken

to remedy the malfunction and the steps

taken or planned to prevent the

recurrence of such malfunction;

(G) For an opacity exceedance, the 6-

minute average opacity monitoring data

greater than 20% for the 24 hours prior

to and during the exceedance for Units

4 and 5; and

(H) The efforts taken or being taken to

minimize the excess emissions and to

repair or otherwise bring the Plant into

compliance with the applicable

emissions limit(s) or other requirements.

(ii) If the period of excess emissions

extends beyond the submittal of the

written report, the owner or operator

shall also notify the Administrator in

writing of the exact time and date when

the excess emissions stopped.

Compliance with the excess emissions

notification provisions of this secton

shall not excuse or otherwise constitute

a defense to any violations of this

section or of any law or regulation

which such excess emissions or

malfunction may cause.

(g) Equipment Operations. At all

times, including periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction, the owner

or operator shall, to the extent

practicable, maintain and operate the

Plant including associated air pollution

control equipment in a manner

consistent with good air pollution

control practices for minimizing

emissions. Determination of whether

acceptable operating and maintenance

procedures are being used will be based

on information available to the

Administrator which may include, but

is not limited to, monitoring results,

opacity observations, review of

operating and maintenance procedures,

and inspection of the Plant. With regard

to the operation of the baghouses on

Units 4 and 5, placing the baghouses in

service before coal fires are initiated

will constitute compliance with this

paragraph. (If the baghouse inlet

temperature cannot achieve 185 degrees

Fahrenheit using only gas fires, the

owner or operator will not be expected

to place baghouses in service before coal

fires are initiated; however, the owner

or operator will remain subject to the

requirements of this paragraph.)

(h) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding

any other provision in this

implementation plan, any credible

evidence or information relevant to

whether the Plant would have been in

compliance with applicable

requirements if the appropriate

performance or compliance test had

been performed, can be used to establish

whether or not the owner or operator

has violated or is in violation of any

standard in the plan.

(2) During periods of start-up and

shutdown the otherwise applicable

emission limits or requirements for

opacity and particulate matter shall not

apply provided that:

(i) At all times the facility is operated

in a manner consistent with good

practice for minimizing emissions, and

the owner or operator uses best efforts

regarding planning, design, and

operating procedures to meet the

otherwise applicable emission limit;

48738
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 173/Wednesday, September 8, 1999/Proposed Rules

(ii) The frequency and duration of

operation in start-up or shutdown mode

are minimized to the maximum extent

practicable; and

(iii) The owner or operator's actions

during start-up and shutdown periods

are documented by properly signed,

contemporaneous operating logs, or

other relevant evidence.

(3) Emissions in excess of the level of

the applicable emission limit or

requirement that occur due to a

malfunction shall constitute a violation

of the applicable emission limit.

However, it shall be an affirmative

defense in an enforcement action

seeking penalties if the owner or

operator has met with all of the

following conditions:

(i) The malfunction was the result of

a sudden and unavoidable failure of

process or air pollution control

equipment and did not result from

inadequate design or construction of the

process or air pollution control

equipment;

(ii) The malfunction did not result

from operator error or neglect, or from

improper operation or maintenance

procedures;

(iii) The excess emissions were not

part of a recurring pattern indicative of

inadequate design, operation, or

maintenance;

(iv) Steps were immediately taken to

correct conditions leading to the

malfunction, and the amount and

duration of the excess emissions caused

by the malfunction were minimized to

the maximum extent practicable;

(v) All possible steps were taken to

minimize the impact of the excess

emissions on ambient air quality;

(vi) All emissions monitoring systems

were kept in operation if at all possible;

and

(vii) The owner or operator's actions

in response to the excess emissions

were documented by properly signed,

contemporaneous operating logs, or

other relevant evidence.

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart GG-New Mexico

2. Subpart GG is proposed to be

amended by adding § 52.1641 to read as

follows:

§52.1641 Federal Implementation Plan for

Four Corners Power Plant, Navajo Nation.

The Federal Implementation Plan

regulating emissions from the Four

Corners Power Plant near Farmington,

New Mexico is codified at 40 CFR 49.21.

[FR Doc. 99 23277 Filed 9 7 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 229-0177; FRL-6433-9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura

County Air Pollution Control District,

Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for

Imation Corp. Camarillo Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions, and are

applicable only to the Imation Corp.

facility in Camarillo, CA (Imation) as

part of the EPA's Imation XL Project.

See 64 FR 37785, July 13, 1999. By this

document, EPA solicits comment on the

proposed rule.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of this rule is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act)

and to facilitate implementation of the

XL Project at Imation. Such

implementation will result in superior

environmental performance and, at the

same time, provide Imation with greater

operational flexibility.

EPA's final action on this proposed

rule will incorporate the rule into the

federally approved SIP. EPA has

evaluated this rule and is proposing to

approve it under provisions of the CAA

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals,

SIPs for national primary and secondary

ambient air quality standards, and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted in

duplicate to: David Albright, Permits

Office (AIR-3), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Docket. A docket containing

supporting information used in

developing this rulemaking, including

copies of the State submittal, the rule,

and EPA's evaluation report of the rule

are available for public inspection and

copying at U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

during normal business hours. Copies of

the rule and related documents are also

available for inspection at the following

location: Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District, 669 County Square

Drive, Ventura, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Albright, Permits Office (AIR-3),

Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-3901, (415) 744-1627 or Daniel

Reich, Office of Regional Counsel (RC2-2), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901,

(415) 744-1343. In addition, the

proposed rule and supporting

documents are also available on the

world wide web at the following

location: http ://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for approval

into the California SIP is Ventura

County Air Pollution Control District,

VCAPCD, Rule 37 "Project XL." This

rule was submitted by the California Air

Resources Board to EPA on July 30,

1999.

II. Background

The proposed California SIP revision

is designed to implement a pilot project

developed under Project XL, an

important EPA initiative to allow

regulated entities to achieve better

environmental results at less cost.

Project XL for "eXcellence and

Leadership"-was announced on March

16, 1995, as a central part of the

National Performance Review's and

EPA's effort to reinvent environmental

protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23,

1995). In addition, on April 22, 1997,

EPA modified its guidance on Project

XL, solicited new XL proposals,

clarified EPA definitions, and described

changes intended to bring greater

efficiency to the process of developing

XL projects. See 62 FR 19872 (April 22,

1997). The Imation XL Project was the

subject of a recent Federal Register

notice announcing the proposed

implementation of the project, making

available the proposed Final Project

Agreement (FPA), and soliciting public

comment on the FPA and the project

overall. See 64 FR 37785, July 13, 1999.

EPA is proposing SIP approval of Rule

37 under a procedure called parallel

processing, whereby EPA proposes

rulemaking action concurrently with the

State's procedures for amending its

48739