# + 2

(,1 1/,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 24hours prior to and during the exceedance;

(iv) Fora particulate matter exceedance, the 6-minute average opacity monitoring data greater than 40% for the 24hours prior to and during the exceedance; and

(v) Proposed plant changes such as operation or maintenance, if any, to prevent future exceedances. Compliance with thisparagraph (f)(3)(v) shall not

excuse or otherwise constitute adefense to any violations ofthis 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 appendixF of40 CFRpart 60. Excess opacity due to uncondensed
water vapor in the stack does not constitute a reportable exceedence.

(g) ComplianceCertifications. Notwithstanding any otherprovision 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 ofsubmitting compliance certifications.

(h) Equipmentoperations.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 otherprovision 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 aperson has violated or is in violation ofany standard in the plan.

(2) Duringperiods ofstart-up and shutdown the otherwise applicable emission limits or requirements for opacity and particulate matter shall not apply provided that: (i) At alltimes the facility is operated in amanner 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 ofthe level of the applicable emission limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute aviolation ofthe applicable emission limit. However, it shall be an affirmative defense in an enforcement action seeking penalties ifthe owner or operator has met with allofthe 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 ofthe process or air pollution control equipment; (ii) The malfunction did notresult from operator error or neglect, or from improper operation ormaintenance procedures; (iii)The excess emissions were not part ofarecurring 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 ofthe excess emissions caused by the malfunction were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; (v) Allpossible steps were taken to minimize the impact ofthe excess emissions on ambient air quality; (vi) All emissions monitoring systems

were keptin operation if at allpossible; and

(vii) The owner or operator's actions in response to the excess emissions

were documented byproperly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence.


### PART52-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 Dis proposed tobe amended by adding §52.141 toread as follows: §52.141 Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo Generating Station,Navajo Nation.

The Federal Implementation Plan regulating emissions from theNavajo Generating Station nearPage, Arizona is codified at 40CFR49.20. [FRDoc.99 23276Filed 9 7 99; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40CFR Parts 49and 52 [FRL-6432-6]
RIN 2060-AF42
SourceSpecific Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant; Navajo Nation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)proposes topromulgate a source-specific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)toregulate emissions from the FourCorners Power Plant (FCPP),a coal-fired power plantlocated on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Farmington, New Mexico. DATES: Comments must bereceived on
orbefore October 8, 1999. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to:Douglas K.McDaniel, AirDivision (AIR-8), U.S. EPARegion IX,75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Douglas K.McDaniel, AirDivision (AIR-8), U.S.EPA Region IX,75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1246. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### Table ofContents

I.Background

A. Action B.Facility C.Attainment D.Jurisdictional Issue II.Basis forProposed Action

A. EPA's Authority to Promulgate aFIP in

Indian Country B.Relation to Tribal Authority Rule III. Four Corners Power Plant Facility Description 

### IV.Summary ofFIP Provisions

A. State Standards B.Acid Rain Program Requirements C.Proposed FIPStandards 

## 48731

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

D. Summary ofChanges From State

Standards E. Compliance Schedule V. Solicitation ofComments VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. PaperworkReduction Act E.Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks F.Executive Order 12875: Enhancingthe

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 powerplant 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 of2000 megawatts (MW). Operations at the facility produce emissions ofsulfur 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 allcriteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "the Act").40 CFR 81.332. As theproposed FCPPFIP merely federalizes the regulatory scheme with which theplant has been complying, EPAbelieves that air quality, and hence the attainment status, in this area will notbe negatively impacted by this action.'

D.Jurisdictional Issue Historically, emissions ofair pollutants from the FCPP facility have

1A different conclusion may bereached by EPA, however, if,for example, there were evidence that the source to beregulated by the FIP is causingor contributing to violations ofthe applicable NAAQS,

or was located in an area thatis designated nonattainment for such NAAQS. been regulated under provisions ofthe 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. CabazonBandof MissionIndians,480 U.S. 202 (1987).

Both the Navajo Nation and members oftheregulated community have queried EPA concerning the jurisdictional issue ofwho has authority under the Act to regulate air emissions from FCPP. Upon review ofthe circumstances surrounding the location and operation ofFCPP 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 ofNew Mexico, the Navajo Nation and FCPP to discuss this jurisdictional issue. All parties have expressed agreement with this conclusion.

II. Basis forProposed Action

A. EPA'sAuthority to PromulgateaFIP inIndian Country

EPA's conclusion that CAA jurisdiction overFCPP 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 ofIndian tribes in implementing the provisions of the Clean Air Act in Indian country. Section 301(d) ofthe Act authorizes EPA to issue regulations specifying the provisions ofthe 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) ofthe Act, entitled "Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management," on February 12, 1998. 63 FR7254. The rule is generally referred
to as the "Tribal Authority Rule" or "TAR".

In the preamble to the proposed 2and final rule,EPA discusses generally the legal basis under the CAA by which EPA and tribes are authorized to regulate sources ofair pollution in Indian country. EPA concluded that the CAA constitutes a statutory grant of jurisdictional authority to Indian tribes

2See 59 FR 43956 (August25, 1994). that allows them to develop air programs forEPA approval in the same

manner as states. 63 FRat 7254-7259; 59 FR43958-43960.

EPA also concluded that the CAA authorizes EPA to protect air quality throughout Indian country, including on fee lands. See 63 FR7262; 59 FR43960- 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) ofthe Act, EPA 63 FRat 7273 (codified at40 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 ofsections 304(a) and 301(d)(4),if

atribe does not submit atribal implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of40 CFRpart 51, Appendix V, or does notreceiveEPA approval ofa 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. EPArecognizes, however, that just as itrequired many years to develop
state and federal programs to cover lands subject to statejurisdiction, it will also require time to develop tribal and federal programs to cover reservations and other lands subject to tribal jurisdiction. 59 FRat 43961.

The Navajo Nation has expressed a stronginterest in seeking authority under the TARto regulate sources ofair 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 willbe 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 forthe various Clean AirAct 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 theAct, which directs EPA to promulgate

aFIP within two years after EPA finds a statehas failed to submit a complete stateplan or within two years after EPA disapproval ofa state plan. Although EPA is notrequired to promulgate a FIP within the two yearperiod for tribes, EPA promulgated 40 CFR49.1 l(a)to clarify that EPA will continue to be subject to the basic requirement
to issue any necessary orappropriate FIP provisions foraffected 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 ofthe New Mexico SIP, notwithstanding the recent promulgation ofthe 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 byNew Mexico since its construction, the state lacksjurisdiction over the facility or its

owners or operators for CAA compliance or enforcement purposes. The Tribe has not submitted atribal 

### implementation plan to address emissions from FCPP and has indicated
to EPA that itprefers 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 ofa comprehensive FIP the applicable regulatory requirements arising under state law would notbe enforceable. EPA's FIP will federalize requirements applicable to FCPP contained in the New Mexico SIP. Given the magnitude ofthe emissions from the plant, EPAbelieves that theproposed FIPprovisions areboth necessary and appropriate to protect air quality on the Reservation.

B. Relationto TribalAuthorityRule

As discussed above, under Section 301(d) ofthe Act, a tribe may develop and implement one or more ofits own air quality programs under the Act through a Tribal Air Program. On February 12, 1998, EPApromulgated regulations under Section 301(d) ofthe 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 (proposedrule) and 63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998 (finalrule).

The Navajo Nation now has the option ofassuming responsibility for the development and implementation of federally enforceable air quality programs under the Clean Air Act. Until

afederally approved Navajo Nation TIP is in place with regulations which cover FCPP,however, EPAhas 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 a2040 MW coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Farmington, New Mexico. The FCPP consists ofthree 190 to 253 MW units and two 818 MW units all ofwhich became operational between 1962 and 1970. The Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is the operating agent for FCPP which is 

### jointly owned by theAPS, the Southern California Edison Company, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement 

### and Power District (SRP), thePublic Service Company ofNew Mexico, the El Paso Electric Company and the Tucson 

### Electric Power Company. Existing pollution controlequipment atFCPP units 4 and 5 includes baghouses and 

### lime spraytowers for SO 2 control and 

### specific burners designed forNOx control. Units 1, 2 and 3each have a venturi scrubber forparticulate and SO 2 

### control.
IV. Summary ofFIPProvisions

A. State Standards



### The standards in this FIPproposal are generally based on the state standards 

### under which thefacility 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 ofthe SO 2produced 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. AcidRainProgramRequirements



### The FederalAcid 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 ofNOx.Units 4 and 5 (cell-fired boilers)must meet a limit of.68 lb/MMbtu.

Emissions ofSO 2 are regulated through an allowance system. FCPPhas sufficient allowances to cover current emissions.

C.ProposedFIPStandards



### 1. SO2

### emissions arenot to exceed 28 percent ofthe SO 2produced in the burning ofsulfur-bearing coal (averaged

over successive thirty boiler operating day periods station-wide) and not to exceed 17,900 pounds oftotal SO 2per 

### hour averaged overany consecutive three hour period station-wide.

2. Particulate emissions are not to exceed 0.050pounds per million BTU of heat input. 3. Opacity is limited to 20 percent averaged over a six minute period, for Units4 and 5.

4. APS will develop aplan to monitor, record and report operating parameters indicative ofgood operation ofthe scrubbers for controlofparticulate 

### matter on Units 1,2, and 3.

5. Nitrogen oxides are notto exceed 0.85pounds per million BTU ofinput for Units 1and 2, and 0.65 pounds per million BTU ofinput for Units 3,4, and 5, averaged overany 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


### arereduced by 1542pounds perhour forunits 1,2, and 3, and by4667 pounds per hour for units 4 and 5.

D. Summary ofChangesFrom State Standards

1. The NOxrequirements 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 hasno effect over FCPP.

2. The SIP particulate emissions sampling methods, which were based in part on an analysis offine particulates, have been changed to EPA methods 

### referenced in federal code (40CFRpart 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 thatthe particulate matterlimit isthe more stringent ofthe two emission limits.



### 3.The standard foropacity has been added in order to confirm Units4 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 ofparticulate, and were later redesigned to also control sulfur 

### dioxide. However, FCPP cannot currently meet acontinuous opacity limit of20 percent atUnits 1, 2 and 3. 

### EPA isproposing thatFCPP design and
enact a plan to monitor operating parameters such aspressure drop and scrubber liquid flow for the scrubbers. This will yield information about continuous proper operation ofthe 

## 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 ofcompliance determination has been changed to a method based on CEM rather than on stack sampling.

6. A number ofother 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. ComplianceSchedule

The EPA proposes that the requirements contained in thisproposal become effective upon promulgation of these regulations, since the emission limits established by the proposed FIP

arepresently being achieved at the facility.

V. Solicitation ofComments

The EPA solicits comments on all aspects oftoday's proposal to promulgate a FIP to regulate air emissions from FCPP. Interested parties should submit comments to the address listed in the front ofthis proposed rule. Public comments postmarked by October 8, 1999 will be considered in the final action taken byEPA. 

### VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 58 FR51735 (October 4, 1993), all "regulatory actions" that are "significant" are subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements ofthe Executive Order. A "regulatory action" is defined

as "any substantive action by an agency (normallypublished in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to result in the promulgation ofa final rule or regulation, including * * * notices ofproposed rulemaking." A "regulation or rule" is defined as "an agency statement ofgeneral applicability and future effect, * *

The proposed FIP is not subject to OMB review underE.O. 12866 because it applies to only a single, specifically named facility and is therefore not a rule ofgeneral applicability. Thus, itis
not a "regulatory action" under E.O. 12866.

B. RegulatoryFlexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.,EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany 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 ofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000. The federal implementation plan for the Four Corners Power Plant proposed today does not impose any new requirements on smallentities. 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 ofthe 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 ofsmall entities within the meaning ofthose terms for RFA purposes.
C. UnfundedMandatesReform Act

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 04-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects oftheir regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 ofUMRA, EPA generally must prepare awritten statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed rules and for final rules for which EPApublished anotice ofproposed rulemaking, ifthose rules contain "federal mandates" that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by theprivate sector, of$100 million

or more in any one year. Ifsection 202 requires awritten statement, section 205 ofUMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider areasonable number ofregulatory alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe 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 ofUMRA requires EPA to develop a process to allow elected officers ofstate, local, and tribal governments (or their designated, authorized employees), to provide meaningful and timely input in the development ofEPA 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 ofthese entities. EPA furtherhas determined that the proposed FIP is not likely to result in the expenditure of$100 million or more by the private sectorin 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 ofUMRA do not apply to the proposed FIP.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it musthave developed under section 203 ofUMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifyingpotentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development ofEPA 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 norequirements on small governments. Therefore, the requirements ofsection 203 do not apply to the proposed FIP. Nonetheless, EPA worked closely with representatives ofthe Tribe in the development oftoday's proposed action.

D.PaperworkReductionAct

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq., OMB must approve all "collections ofinformation" by EPA. The Actdefines "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 Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth Risks andSafety Risks

This executive order applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be "economically significant" asthat term is defined in E.O. 12866, and (2)

concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe mayhave adisproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency
must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects ofthe 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 ofthe Order has the potential to influence theregulation. The FCPPFIP is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it implements previously promulgated health or safety-based federal standards.

F. Executive Order12875:Enhancing theIntergovernmentalPartnership

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue aregulation 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 ofManagement and Budget a description ofthe extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature oftheir
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 otherrepresentatives of state, local and tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development ofregulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates."

As stated above, theproposed FIP will
not create amandate on state, local or tribal governments because it will not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 1(a) ofExecutive Order 12875 do not apply to thisrule. Nonetheless, EPA worked closely with representatives ofthe Tribe during the development oftoday's proposed action.
G.Executive Order13084:Consultation and CoordinationWith IndianTribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue aregulation 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. IfEPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section ofthe preamble to the rule, a description ofthe extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives ofaffected tribal governments, a summary ofthe nature oftheir concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development ofregulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities."

The proposed FIP does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on the communities ofIndian tribal governments. The proposed FIPimposes obligations only on the owner or operator ofFCPP. Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

H. NationalTechnology Transferand AdvancementAct
Section 12(d) ofthe 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). Forthe
measurement ofthe sulfur in the coal for calculating the efficiency ofthe SO 2 scrubbers for FCCP, EPA proposes to require use ofASTM 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 ofEPA Performance Specification 1 (see 40 CFRpart 60, appendix B) for the opacity monitoring to be required for this facility. On September 23, 1998, EPAproposed incorporating by reference ASTM D6216-98 intoPerformance 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 ofEPA Performance Specification 1in the interim.

In regard to the remaining
measurement needs as listed below, there are a number ofvoluntary

consensus standards that appear to have possible use in lieu ofthe EPA test methods and performance specifications (40CFRpart 60 appendices A and B) noted next to the measurement requirements. It would notbe practical
to specify these standards in the current rulemaking due to a lack ofsufficient data on equivalency and validation and because some are still under development. However, EPA's Office of AirQuality Planning and Standards is in the process ofreviewing all available VCS for incorporation byreference into the test methods and performance specifications of40 CFRpart 60, appendices A and B. Any VCS so incorporated in a specified test method

orperformance specification would then be available for use in determining the emissions from this facility. This willbe an ongoingprocess designed to incorporate suitable VCS as they become available.

Particulate Matter Emissions-EPA Methods 1through 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 NOxMonitoring and Performance Specification 6 for Flow Monitoring. 

### ListofSubjects

40 CFRPart 49
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart 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. CarolM.Browner, Administrator.

Title 40 chapter I ofthe 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: 42U.S.C. 7401, etseq. 2. Part 49 is proposed to be amended by adding §49.21 to read as follows:
§49.21 Federal Implementation Plan Provisionsfor FourCorners Power Plant, Navajo Nation.

(a)Applicability.The provisions of this section shall apply to each owner
or operator ofthe 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) ComplianceDates.Compliance with therequirements ofthis section is required upon promulgation unless otherwise indicated by compliance dates contained in specific provisions.

(c) Definitions.Forthe purposes of this section:

(1) A dministrator means the Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or his/her authorized representative.

(2)Affirmative defense means, in the
context ofan enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden ofproof, and the merits ofwhich are independently and objectively evaluated in ajudicial

or administrative proceeding.

(3)A irpollutioncontrolequipment includes baghouses, particulate or gaseous scrubbers, and any other apparatus utilized to control emissions ofregulated air contaminants which would be emitted to the atmosphere.

(4)Boileroperatingdaymeans a24- hour period during which coal is combusted in a Unit for the entire 24 hours.

(5) Dailyaveragemeans the arithmetic average ofthe hourly values measured in a 24-hour period.

(6) Excess emissionsmeans the emissions ofair contaminants in excess ofan applicable emissions limitation or requirement.

(7) Heatinputmeans heat derived from combustion offuelin a Unit and does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air, recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other

sources.

(8)Malfunctionmeans any sudden and unavoidable failure ofair pollution control equipment or process equipment

or ofa process to operate in a normal

or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in part bypoor maintenance, careless operation, or any other preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered malfunctions. (9) OwnerorOperator means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the Plant or any ofthe coal burning equipment designated as Units 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 at the Plant. (10) Oxidesofnitrogen(NOx)means the sum ofnitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)in the flue gas, expressed as nitrogen dioxide. (11) Shutdown means the cessation of operation ofany 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 40MW net load with the intent to remove the unit from service. For Units 4or 5, shutdown begins when the unit dropsbelow 300 MW net load with the intent to remove the unitfrom service. (12) Startupmeans the setting into operation ofany air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or process for any purpose. Specifically, for Units 1, 2,or 3, startup ends when the unitreaches 40MW net load. For Units 4 or 5, startup ends when the unit reaches 400MW net load. (13) Station-wide basismeans total stack emissions ofany particular pollutant from all coal burning equipment atthe Plant. (14) 24-hourperiod means the period oftime between 12:01 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. (d) EmissionsStandards.-(1)Sulfur Dioxide.No owner oroperator shall discharge or cause the discharge of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) into the atmosphere in excess of: (i) 28% ofthat 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 oftotal 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 ofparticulate matter from any coal burning equipment into the atmosphere in excess of0.050 pound per million British thermal unit (lb/ MMBtu) ofheat input (higher heating value), as averaged over six (6) hours of sampling.

(3) Opacity.No owner oroperator shall discharge or cause the discharge of emissions from the stacks ofUnits 4 and 5 into the atmosphere exhibiting greater than 20% opacity, excluding water vapor, averaged over any six (6) minute period (except forone six (6) minute period per hour ofnot more than 27% opacity, excluding water vapor).

(4) Oxidesofnitrogen.No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the discharge ofNOx intothe atmosphere:

(i) From either Unit 1or 2 in excess of0.85 lb/MMBtu ofheat input per unit, and from either Units 3, 4, or 5 in excess of0.65 lb/MMBtu ofheat input per unit averaged over any successive thirty (30) boiler operating day period; (ii) In excess of335,000 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. Ifthe unit which is not operating is Unit 1, 2, or 3, the limitation shall be reduced by 1,542 lb per hour foreach unit which is not operating. Ifthe unit which is not operating is Unit 4 or 5, the limitation shall be reduced by4,667 lb per hour for each unitwhich is not operating.

(e) Testingandmonitoring. Upon completion ofthe installation of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) software as required in this section, compliance with the emissions limits setfor SO 2 and NOx shall be determined by using datafrom

a CEMS unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4)ofthis section. Compliance with the emissions limit set for particulate matter shall be determined annually, or at such other time asrequested bythe Administrator, based on data from testing conducted in accordance with 40CFRpart 60, appendix A, Methods 1 through 5, or any other method receivingprior approval from the Administrator. Upon completion ofthe installation of continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) software asrequired in this regulation, compliance with the emissions limits setfor opacity shall be determined by using data from a COMS except during saturated stack conditions (condensed water vapor). Ifthe 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, adiluent and, for Units 4 and 5 only, COMS, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13, and appendix B of 40 CFRpart 60. Within six (6) months ofpromulgation ofthis regulation, the

owner or operator shall install CEMS and COMS software which complies with therequirements ofthis regulation. The owner or operator ofthe Plant may petition the Administrator for extension ofthe six (6) month period for good

cause shown. Completion of40 CFR part 75 monitor certification requirements shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements under40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13 and appendix B ofpart 60. The

owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFRpart 75, and allreports required thereunder shall be submitted
to the Administrator. The owner or operator shallprovide the Administrator notice in accordance with 40 CFR 75.61.

(2) SulfurDioxide.(i) For the purpose ofdetermining compliance with this section, the sulfur dioxide inlet rate (in lb/MMBtu) shall be calculated using the daily average percent sulfur and Btu content ofthe coal combusted. The inlet sulfur concentration and Btu content shallbe 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 coalpulverizers 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)/GCVx 104 

### Englishunits 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% ofmaximum operation in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and appendix A to 40 CFRpart 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 1and 2 share a
common stack. The owner or operator shall submit written notice ofthe date oftesting no later than 21 days prior to testing. Testing may be performed on a date other than that already provided in

anotice as long as notice ofthe new date is provided either in writing orby 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 shorterperiod as approved bythe Administrator) in advance ofthe new date oftesting.

(4) Oxidesofnitrogen.The total daily station-wide oxides ofnitrogen emissions in pounds ofNO2per 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 totalheat input for each unit (MMBtu);

n the number ofunits ofcoalburning equipment operating during the hour;

m the number ofoperating hours in

aday, from midnight to midnight. (5) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation ofthe coal burning equipment, including periods ofstartup, 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 aminimum ofone cycle ofoperation (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 ofcontinuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be obtained byusing other monitoring systems approved bythe EPA to provide emission data for a minimum of 18 hours in at least 22 out of30 successive boiler operating days. NOx emissions rates and quantities shall be reported as NO2 concentrations. When CEMS data is
not available because ofmalfunctions, the unavailable NOx data will be replaced with a calculated value based

on the average ofthe last valid data point and the next valid data point for purposes ofcalculating total stationwide nitrogen dioxide emissions. (6) The owner or operator shall maintain two sets ofopacity filters for each type ofCOMS, one set to be used

as calibration standards and one setto be used as audit standards. At least one set offilters 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 ofthe 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 ofparticulate 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 followingprovisions:

(i) The owner or operator shall develop a plan to monitor,record, and report parameter(s) indicative ofthe proper operation ofthe scrubbers to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with the particulate matter limits in paragraph (d)(2) ofthis section. The owner oroperator shall submit this plan to the Administrator no laterthan December 31, 1999. The owner or operator shall implement this plan within 30 days ofapproval bythe 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) ofthis 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 ofeach 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
atleast a five-year period. The owner or operator shall report in an electronic format either allhourly data, or onehour averages deviating bymore than 30% from the levels measured during the last particulate matter stack test that demonstrated compliance with the limit in thisregulation. The owner or operator shall implement this requirement no laterthan 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 ofthe 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) ofthis 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 ofthe monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part bypoor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.

(iv) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator for an extension ofthe December 31, 1999 deadline. Such extension shall be granted only ifthe owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction ofthe Administrator that:

(A) The delay is due to technical infeasibility beyond the control ofthe

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 ofthe end ofeach calendar quarter.

(vi) The owner or operator shall develop and document a quality

assurance program for the monitoring and recording instrumentation. This program shallbe updated or improved

as requested by the Administrator.

(vii) In the event that aprogram for parameter monitoring on Units 1, 2, and 3 is approved pursuant to the Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule, 40 CFRpart 64, such program will supersede the provisions contained in paragraph (e)(8) ofthis section.

(f) Reportingandrecordkeeping requirements.Unless otherwise stated allrequests, reports, submittals, notifications, and other communications
to the Administrator required by this section shallbe submitted to the Director, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, to the attention ofMail Code: AIR-5, at75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105, (415)744- 1138, (415)744-1076 (facsimile). For each unit subject to the emissions limitation in thisregulation and upon completion ofthe installation ofCEMS and COMS asrequired 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 of40 CFRpart 75. (2) Furnish the Administrator with reports describing the results ofthe annual particulate matter emissions
tests postmarked within sixty (60) days ofcompleting the tests. Each report shall include the following information:

(i) The test date; (ii) The test method; (iii)Identification ofthe coal burning equipment tested; (iv) Values for stack pressure, temperature, moisture, and distribution ofvelocity heads; (v) Average heat input; (vi) Emissions data, identified by sample number, and expressed in pounds per MMBtu; (vii) Arithmetic average ofsample data expressed in pounds per MMBtu; and

(viii)A description of any variances from the test method. (3) Excess emissionsreport.(i) For

excess emissions, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator by telephone or in writingwithin one business day ("initial notification"). A complete written report ofthe incident shall be submitted to the Administrator within ten (10) business days ofthe initial notification. The complete written report shall include: (A) The name and title oftheperson reporting; (B) The identity and location ofthe 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 ofthe excess emissions; (D)The magnitude ofthe excess emissions expressed in the units ofthe applicable emissions limitation and the operating data and calculations used in determining the magnitude ofthe excess emissions; (E)The nature ofthe condition causing the excess emissions and the

reasons why excess emissions occurred

or are occurring; (F)Ifthe excess emissions were the result ofa malfunction, the steps taken
to remedy the malfunction and the steps taken or planned to prevent the

recurrence ofsuch 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) Ifthe period ofexcess emissions extends beyond the submittal ofthe written report, the owner or operator shall also notify the Administrator in writing ofthe exact time and date when the excess emissions stopped. Compliance with the excess emissions notification provisions ofthis secton shall not excuse or otherwise constitute

a defense to any violations ofthis section or ofany law or regulation which such excess emissions or malfunction may cause.

(g)EquipmentOperations. At all times, including periods ofstartup, 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 airpollution controlpractices for minimizing emissions. Determination ofwhether 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 ofthe Plant. With regard
to the operation ofthe baghouses on Units4 and 5, placing the baghouses in service before coal fires are initiated will constitute compliance with this paragraph. (Ifthe 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 willremain subject to the requirements ofthis 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 testhad been performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or operator has violated or is in violation ofany standard in the plan.

(2) During periods ofstart-up and shutdown the otherwise applicable emission limits orrequirements for opacity and particulate matter shall not apply provided that:

(i) At alltimes the facility is operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions, and the owner or operatoruses 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 byproperly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence.

(3) Emissions in excess ofthe level of the applicable emission limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a violation ofthe applicable emission limit. However, it shall be an affirmative defense in an enforcement action seekingpenalties ifthe owner or operator has met with all ofthe 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 ofthe process or air pollution control equipment;

(ii) The malfunction did notresult from operator error or neglect, or from improper operation or maintenance procedures;

(iii) The excess emissions were not part ofarecurring 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 ofthe excess emissions caused by the malfunction were minimized to the maximum extent practicable;

(v) Allpossible steps were taken to minimize the impact ofthe excess emissions on ambient air quality;

(vi) All emissions monitoring systems

were kept in operation if at allpossible; 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.


### PART52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401, etseq. 

### 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 FourCorners 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 [CA229-0177; FRL-6433-9] 

### Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura CountyAirPollutionControl District, ProjectXLSite-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 ofvolatile organic compound (VOC)emissions, and are applicable only to the Imation Corp. facility in Camarillo, CA (Imation) as part ofthe EPA's Imation XLProject. See 64 FR 37785, July 13, 1999. By this document, EPA solicits comment on the proposed rule.

The intended effect ofproposing approval ofthis rule is to regulate emissions ofVOCs in accordance with the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act) and to facilitate implementation ofthe XL Project at Imation. Such implementation will result in superior environmental performance and, atthe

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. EPAhas evaluated this rule and is proposing to approve it under provisions ofthe 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 ofthe State submittal, the rule, and EPA's evaluation report ofthe rule are available for public inspection and copying at U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA during normalbusiness 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. FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Albright, Permits Office (AIR-3), AirDivision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1627 or Daniel Reich, Office ofRegional 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 bythe California Air Resources Board to EPA on July 30, 1999.

II. Background

The proposed California SIP revision is designed to implement apilot 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 acentral part ofthe 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 ofdeveloping XL projects. See 62 FR 19872 (April22, 1997). The Imation XL Project was the subject ofarecent Federal Register notice announcing the proposed implementation ofthe project, making available theproposed 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 ofRule 37 under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with the State's procedures for amending its 

## 48739