[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51950-51985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23783]



[[Page 51949]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 60



Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 51950]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260; FRL-8965-3]
RIN 2060-AO57


Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing 
Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating amendments to the new source performance 
standards for coal preparation and processing plants. These final 
amendments include revisions to the emission limits for particulate 
matter and opacity standards for thermal dryers, pneumatic coal 
cleaning equipment, and coal handling equipment (coal processing and 
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer and 
loading systems) located at coal preparation and processing plants. 
These revised limits apply to affected facilities that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after April 28, 2008. The 
amendments also establish a sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 
limit and a combined nitrogen oxide (NOX) and carbon 
monoxide (CO) emissions limit for thermal dryers located at coal 
preparation and processing plants. In addition, the amendments 
establish work practice standards to control fugitive coal dust 
emissions from open storage piles located at coal preparation and 
processing plants. The SO2 limit, the NOX/CO 
limit, and the work practice standards apply to affected facilities 
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction of which 
commences after May 27, 2009. We are also modifying the definition of 
thermal dryer to include both direct contact and indirect contact 
thermal dryers drying all coal ranks. We are modifying the definition 
of pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment to include equipment cleaning all 
coal ranks. We are also amending the definition of coal for purposes of 
subpart Y to include coal refuse. The modified definitions of thermal 
dryer, pneumatic coal cleaning equipment, and coal will be used to 
determine whether and how the standards apply to facilities that 
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after May 27, 
2009.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 8, 2009. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
October 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action which is Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants 
Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Johnson, Energy Strategies 
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5025, 
facsimile number (919) 541-5450, electronic mail (e-mail) address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information presented in 
this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information on Subpart Y
III. Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart Y and Changes Since 
Proposal
    A. Affected Facilities
    B. Emission Limits
    C. Emissions Testing and Monitoring Requirements
    D. Opacity Testing and Monitoring Requirements
    E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    F. Electronic Reporting
    G. Additional Amendments
IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Regulated Pollutants
    B. Applicability and Definitions
    C. Subcategorization
    D. Coal Drying Standards
    E. Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage 
Systems, Transfer and Loading Systems, and Open Storage Piles 
Standards
    F. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
    G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    H. Assessment of Impacts
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What Are the Primary Air Impacts?
    B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
    C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
    D. What Are the Secondary Air Impacts?
    E. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental, Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by the final 
amendments to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Coal 
Preparation and Processing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y) include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category               NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  212111...........  Bituminous Coal and
                                                    Lignite Surface
                                                    Mining.
                                212112...........  Bituminous Coal
                                                    Underground Mining.
                                221112...........  Fossil Fuel Electric
                                                    Power Generation.
                                212113...........  Anthracite Mining.
                                213113...........  Support Activities
                                                    for Coal Mining.
                                322121...........  Paper (except
                                                    Newsprint) Mills.
                                324199...........  All other petroleum
                                                    and coal products
                                                    manufacturing.
                                325110...........  Petrochemical
                                                    Manufacturing.

[[Page 51951]]

 
                                327310...........  Cement Manufacturing.
                                331111...........  Iron and Steel Mills.
Federal Government............  22112............  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                    electric utility
                                                    steam generating
                                                    units owned by the
                                                    Federal Government.
State/local/Tribal government.  22112............  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                    electric utility
                                                    steam generating
                                                    units owned by
                                                    municipalities.
                                921150...........  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                    electric steam
                                                    generating units in
                                                    Indian Country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
final action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by 
this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 
CFR 60.250 and definitions in Sec.  60.251 (subpart Y). If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this final action to a 
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this 
final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for 
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by December 7, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information on Subpart Y

    NSPS implement CAA section 111(b) and are issued for categories of 
sources which have been identified as causing, or contributing 
significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS are 
to help States attain and maintain ambient air quality by ensuring that 
the best demonstrated emission control technologies are installed as 
the industrial infrastructure is modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have 
been successful in achieving long-term emissions reductions in numerous 
industries by assuring cost-effective controls are installed on new, 
reconstructed, and modified sources.
    CAA section 111 requires that the NSPS reflect the degree of 
emission limitation achievable through application of the best system 
of emissions reductions which (taking into consideration the cost of 
achieving such emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated. This level of control is 
commonly referred to as best demonstrated technology (BDT). Standards 
of performance for coal preparation plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y) 
were promulgated in the Federal Register on January 15, 1976 (41 FR 
2232). The standards are applicable to facilities which process more 
than 181 megagrams (Mg) (200 tons) of coal per day that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 24, 1974.
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA to periodically review and 
revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect 
improvements in methods for reducing emissions. The first review of the 
coal preparation plants NSPS was completed on April 14, 1981 (46 FR 
21769). The second review of the coal preparation plants NSPS was 
completed on April 3, 1989 (54 FR 13384). EPA did not make changes to 
the NSPS as a result of either review.
    We proposed amendments to the coal preparation plants NSPS on April 
28, 2008 (73 FR 22901) as a result of the current review. We received a 
total of 42 comments from coal preparation plants, industry trade 
associations, control technology vendors, environmental groups, and 
State environmental agencies during the comment period. After reviewing 
those comments and considering additional data, EPA decided to publish 
a supplemental proposal which revised some of the emission limits and 
monitoring requirements proposed on April 28, 2008, added additional 
limits, and applied the requirements to additional affected facilities. 
The supplemental action was proposed on May 27, 2009 (74 FR 25304). A 
total of 44 comments were received from coal preparation plants, other 
types of industrial facilities, industry associations, environmental 
groups, and State environmental agencies. This final rule reflects our 
consideration of all the comments we received regarding the April 2008 
and May 2009 proposals. Detailed responses to the comments not included 
in this preamble are contained in the Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses document which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

[[Page 51952]]

III. Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart Y and Changes Since 
Proposal

A. Affected Facilities

    Subpart Y regulates affected facilities located at coal preparation 
and processing plants which process more than 181 megagrams (Mg) (200 
tons) of coal per day. A coal preparation and processing plant begins 
at the first hopper (i.e., drop point) used to unload coal and ends at 
the load-out (i.e., distribution) of the coal either to a method of 
transportation (e.g., truck, train) or to the end-use piece of 
equipment (e.g., boiler).
    The affected facilities regulated by this final rule are thermal 
dryers, pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment, coal processing and 
conveying equipment (including breakers and crushers), coal storage 
systems, transfer and loading systems, and open storage piles. This 
final rule expands applicability of the existing NSPS by revising the 
definitions of thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment, and 
coal. It also establishes work practice standards for open storage 
piles. The final rule amends the definition of thermal dryer for units 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009, to include 
both direct and indirect dryers drying all coal ranks (i.e., 
bituminous, subbituminous, lignite, and anthracite coals) and coal 
refuse. The final rule regulates emissions of SO2 and 
NOX/CO only from thermal dryers that receive thermal input 
from the combustion of coal, coal refuse, or residual oil; PM and 
opacity are regulated from all thermal dryers.
    The emissions standards for thermal dryers apply to emissions from 
the heat source for an indirect thermal dryer only if those emissions 
are not otherwise regulated under another NSPS. Indirect thermal dryers 
use a heat transfer medium to supply heat and blow air over the coal to 
evaporate the water. If the source of heat (the source of combustion or 
furnace) is subject to another subpart of Part 60, then the furnace and 
the associated emissions are not considered part of the subpart Y 
affected facility (i.e., the thermal dryer). However, if the source of 
heat is not subject to another subpart of Part 60, then the furnace and 
the associated emissions are part of the subpart Y affected facility. 
In situations where the source of heat is part of the affected facility 
and its exhaust is combined with the dryer exhaust in a single stack, 
the combined exhaust is subject to all subpart Y requirements 
applicable to the thermal dryer exhaust. However, in situations where 
the furnace is part of the affected facility and its exhaust is not 
combined with the dryer exhaust, the subpart Y requirements for thermal 
dryers apply differently to the dryer exhaust and the combustion (i.e., 
heat source or furnace) exhaust. All of the thermal dryer requirements 
of subpart Y apply to the combustion exhaust, whereas, only a subset of 
the subpart Y requirements for thermal dryers apply to the dryer 
exhaust. In addition, thermal dryers that use residual or waste heat 
from the combustion of coal, coal refuse, or residual oil, or that 
obtain all of their thermal input from gaseous fuels (e.g., blast 
furnace gas, coke oven gas, natural gas) or distillate oil also are 
only be subject to certain subset of the subpart Y requirements for 
thermal dryers.
    Further, a thermal dryer that is part of an in-line coal mill at a 
Portland cement manufacturing plant where all of the thermal input is 
supplied by cement kiln exhaust or clinker cooler exhaust, is not 
subject to the requirements in subpart Y, but, rather, must meet the 
applicable requirements in the appropriate Portland Cement kiln 
regulations (40 CFR 60 subpart F and 40 CFR 63 subpart LLL). The 
amended subpart Y emissions limits for thermal dryers apply to new, 
reconstructed, or modified thermal dryers at Portland cement 
manufacturing plants in situations where the thermal input is not 
supplied by cement kiln or clinker cooler exhaust. Other subpart Y 
affected facilities located at Portland cement manufacturing plants 
(e.g., storage systems, conveyors) are also subject to the requirements 
of subpart Y. Similarly, a coal thermal dryer at an integrated iron or 
steel manufacturing plant where all of the thermal input is provided by 
process gases is not regulated under subpart Y, but, rather, under 40 
CFR part 60 standards for integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
plants. Again, the amended emissions limits apply to new, 
reconstructed, or modified thermal dryers at integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing plants only in situations where the thermal input is not 
supplied by process gases. Other subpart Y affected facilities located 
at integrated iron and steel manufacturing plants also are subject to 
subpart Y. If an affected facility under subpart Y uses waste-heat or 
process gases from a process that is subject to emission limits under 
another NSPS or national emission standard for hazardous air pollutant 
(NESHAP), the process using the waste-heat or process gases is not 
subject to requirements under subpart Y, but, rather, is subject to the 
other applicable NSPS or NESHAP.
    This final rule also amends the definition of pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment for units constructed after May 27, 2009, to include 
pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment cleaning all coal ranks. Finally, the 
final rule establishes work practice standards that apply to open 
storage coal piles constructed, reconstructed or modified after May 27, 
2009.

B. Emission Limits

    This action promulgates emission limits applicable to certain 
thermal dryers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 
2008. It also promulgates emission limits for additional pollutants 
applicable to certain thermal dryers constructed, reconstructed, or 
modified after May 27, 2009.
    Direct-contact thermal dryers that use coal, coal refuse, or 
residual oil as the dryer heat source and are constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, are subject to 
emission limits for PM and opacity. Indirect thermal dryers 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009, are subject 
to the same PM and opacity limits as direct-contact thermal dryers. 
Both direct-contact thermal dryers and indirect thermal dryers 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009, are subject 
to an SO2 emission limit and a combined NOX-CO 
emissions limit. In certain instances, thermal dryers are not subject 
to the SO2 and/or NOX-CO emission limits. Thermal 
dryers constructed, reconstructed or modified after May 27, 2009, for 
which all of the thermal input is supplied from a source other than 
coal, coal refuse, or residual oil (i.e., thermal input is from gaseous 
fuels such as blast furnace gas, coke oven gas, or natural gas, or 
distillate oil) are not subject to SO2 or NOX-CO 
emission limits. Indirect thermal dryers constructed, reconstructed, or 
modified after May 27, 2009, that use residual or waste heat from the 
combustion of coal, coal refuse, or residual oil also are not subject 
to the emission limits for SO2 or NOX-CO.
    Indirect thermal dryers that receive all of their thermal input 
from a source subject to an SO2 limit, or NOX 
and/or CO limit, under another Part 60 NSPS are not subject to emission 
limits under subpart Y for those pollutants (e.g., indirect thermal 
dryers for which the source of heat is subject to a boiler NSPS 
(subpart Da, Db, or Dc)). In that instance, the furnace (i.e., source 
of thermal input) and the associated emissions are not considered part 
of the subpart Y thermal dryer facility. However, if the source of heat 
is not

[[Page 51953]]

subject to another Part 60 NSPS, then the furnace and the associated 
emissions are part of the subpart Y thermal dryer facility. In the 
instance where the furnace is part of the affected facility and its 
exhaust is combined with the thermal dryer exhaust, the combined 
exhaust contains all of the applicable pollutants (i.e., PM, opacity, 
SO2, NOX, and CO) and all of the subpart Y 
requirements regarding those emissions from thermal dryers apply. 
However, in the instance where the furnace is part of the affected 
facility, but its exhaust is not combined with the dryer exhaust, the 
furnace exhaust and dryer exhaust are subject to different 
requirements. The furnace exhaust is subject to emission limits for PM, 
opacity, SO2, and NOX-CO. The dryer exhaust, 
however, is only subject to the PM and opacity limits because the 
exhaust does not contain SO2, NO, and CO.
1. PM and Opacity Limits for Thermal Dryers
    Thermal dryers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 
28, 2008, are subject to emission limits for PM and opacity. The PM and 
opacity limits in the final rule for new thermal dryers are the same as 
those proposed in May 2009. EPA determined that thermal dryers 
undergoing reconstruction could undergo the conversions necessary to 
also comply with the PM and opacity limits that reflect BDT for new 
thermal dryers (i.e., fabric filter-controlled recirculation thermal 
dryers and fabric filter-controlled indirect thermal dryers). Thus, the 
final rule subjects new and reconstructed thermal dryers to a PM limit 
of 0.023 grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm)(0.010 grains per 
dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)) and an opacity limit of less than 10 
percent. The final rule requires modified thermal dryers to continue to 
comply with the 1976 rule's PM limit of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf) 
and the 1976 rule's opacity limit of less than 20 percent. These limits 
can be achieved using the technology that EPA determined constitutes 
BDT for modified thermal dryers (i.e., venturi scrubbers).
2. SO2, NOX, and CO Limits for Thermal Dryers
    Thermal dryers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 
27, 2009, must either limit their SO2 emissions to 85 
nanograms per Joule (ng/J) (0.20 pounds per million British thermal 
units (lb/MMBtu)), or achieve a 90 percent reduction of potential 
SO2 emissions and limit their SO2 emissions to no 
more than 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/MMBtu). The percent reduction requirement 
has been revised from the 50 percent requirement proposed in May 2009 
to 90 percent in the final rule. In the May 27, 2009, supplemental 
proposal, EPA concluded that dry sorbent injection into the thermal 
dryer and spraying caustic onto the coal prior to the thermal dryer 
were both BDT for SO2 reduction (74 FR 25310). We also 
indicated that we were considering an SO2 percent reduction 
requirement of between 50 and 90 percent for the final rule (74 FR 
25311). We have reassessed the available SO2 data and 
believe that the limits established in the final rule are appropriate 
for new, reconstructed, and modified thermal dryers. Based on our 
reassessment, we determined that BDT for modified and reconstructed 
thermal dryers is a wet scrubber with a scrubbing reagent (e.g., an 
upgraded venturi scrubber with sodium hydroxide or packed bed scrubber 
with lime). For new thermal dryers, we determined that BDT for 
controlling SO2 emissions is the injection of sodium 
hydroxide directly to the venturi scrubber fluid or injection of a 
sodium-based sorbent into the combustion gases prior to the drying 
chamber. All three of these technologies are capable of achieving 90 
percent SO2 reduction.
    In the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal, EPA determined that BDT 
for controlling NOX emissions from new, reconstructed, and 
modified thermal dryers is combustion controls (e.g., low 
NOX burners, staged combustion, co-firing with natural gas 
or liquefied petroleum gas, and flue gas recirculation). BDT for 
controlling CO emissions was determined to be good combustion practices 
(e.g., ensuring that there is sufficient oxygen in the combustion zone, 
maintaining appropriate combustion zone temperature and gas residence 
time, and conducting proper operation and maintenance of the dryer). 
For affected thermal dryers that commence construction, reconstruction, 
or modification after May 27, 2009, the final NOX-CO 
emissions limits are the same as those proposed in May 2009. 
Reconstructed and modified thermal dryers are required to comply with a 
combined NOX-CO limit of 430 ng/J (1.0 lb/MMBtu). New 
thermal dryers are required to comply with a NOX-CO limit of 
280 ng/J (0.65 lb/MMBtu).
3. PM and Opacity Limits for Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning Equipment, Coal 
Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage Systems, Transfer and 
Loading Systems, and Open Storage Piles
    The PM and opacity limits in the final rule for pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment are the same as those proposed in the May 2009 
supplemental proposal. Pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment, cleaning all 
coal ranks, constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 
2008, must comply with a PM limit of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) and 
an opacity limit of equal to or less than 5 percent.
    For affected coal-handling equipment (coal processing and conveying 
equipment (including breakers and crushers), coal storage systems, and 
transfer and loading systems) constructed, reconstructed, or modified 
after April 28, 2008, that is mechanically vented to the atmosphere, 
the final rule requires compliance with the PM limit that was proposed 
in May 2009. That is, mechanically vented coal-handling equipment 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, must 
comply with a PM limit of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). The final rule 
also requires affected coal handling equipment constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, to maintain opacity 
levels of less than 10 percent. In the May 27, 2009, supplemental 
proposal, EPA requested comment on whether an opacity limit of less 
than 10 percent is more appropriate than a limit of 5 percent as 
proposed in the supplemental action. We also requested comment on 
whether the 5 percent limit is achievable on a long-term basis and 
whether the limit provides an adequate compliance margin. As we pointed 
out in supporting documentation (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0083, pp. 3-
4), the data used to establish the supplemental proposal's 5 percent 
opacity level were primarily from initial compliance tests. Upon 
reconsideration of EPA's data and consideration of public comments and 
additional supporting data, EPA has determined that an opacity limit of 
less than 10 percent is more appropriate for all coal handling 
equipment. An opacity limit of 10 percent will allow for control 
equipment degradation, adverse conditions, and variability that would 
not be reflected in initial compliance tests. Although we modified our 
conclusion regarding the opacity limit achievable by the application of 
BDT, we did not modify our prior conclusions regarding BDT for coal-
handling

[[Page 51954]]

equipment. BDT for coal-handling equipment used on subbituminous and 
lignite coals consists of four technologies--fabric filters, passive 
enclosure containment systems (PECS), fogging systems, and wet 
extraction scrubbers. BDT for coal-handling equipment processing 
bituminous coal is the use of chemical suppressants. All of these 
emissions reduction measures can control PM emissions equally well. See 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260-0083, pp. 1-2.
    EPA also concluded that if a building in which affected coal 
processing and conveying equipment (e.g., breakers, crushers, screens, 
conveying systems), coal storage systems, and transfer system 
operations are enclosed is found to be in compliance with the subpart Y 
limits that apply to the affected facilities enclosed in the building, 
the affected facilities enclosed in that building also are in 
compliance. Thus, the final rule provides that buildings containing 
coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and 
transfer system operations constructed, reconstructed, or modified on 
or before April 28, 2008, must not exhibit 20 percent opacity or 
greater. Fugitive emissions from buildings that enclose coal processing 
and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer system 
operations constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 
2008, must not exhibit opacity of 10 percent or more. For buildings 
enclosing coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage 
systems, and transfer system operations constructed, reconstructed, or 
modified after April 28, 2008, that discharge emissions from a 
mechanical vent, emissions must not contain PM in excess of 0.023 g/
dscm (0.010 gr/dscf).
4. Open Storage Pile Requirements
    EPA's May 27, 2009, supplemental action proposed to establish work 
practice standards for open storage piles and roadways. EPA determined 
that it was not feasible to establish opacity or PM limits for these 
types of affected facilities. At the current time, EPA believes it is 
difficult and prohibitively expensive to measure actual PM emissions 
from individual open storage piles or roadways. Further, the size of 
open storage piles and the mobile nature of coal dust from vehicle 
tires on roadways currently make the use of Method 9 opacity 
observations unreasonable in many situations. Based on that 
determination, we proposed to require owners or operators of open 
storage piles and roadways associated with coal preparation plants to 
develop and comply with a fugitive coal dust emissions control plan to 
control fugitive PM emissions. Commenters pointed out that the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) covers fugitive dust 
emissions from roads at coal preparation and processing plants at mine 
sites and requires a fugitive dust plan. EPA believes that coal moving 
operations, once the coal enters the ``coal preparation plant,'' will 
be by conveyor rather than by truck. Therefore, we believe that the 
requirements of SMCRA are sufficient to address air emissions from 
roadways that may be found within a coal preparation and processing 
plant at mine sites. For coal preparation and processing plants at end-
user facilities, we believe that, again, once the coal enters the 
``coal preparation plant,'' coal moving operations will be by conveyor 
rather than by truck. Thus, EPA has decided not to finalize the 
proposed requirements for roadways. EPA also proposed to require that 
the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan include procedures for 
limiting emissions from all types of ``coal processing and conveying 
equipment'' at a coal preparation and processing plant. EPA agrees with 
commenters that subpart Y should specifically designate each type of 
affected facility subject to the fugitive dust emissions control plan 
and, therefore, we are not finalizing that proposed requirement.
    A fugitive coal dust emissions control plan is required for open 
storage piles, which include the equipment used in the loading, 
unloading and conveying operations of the affected facility, 
constructed, reconstructed or modified after May 27, 2009. The owner or 
operator is required to prepare and operate in accordance with a 
submitted fugitive coal dust emissions control plan that is appropriate 
for the site conditions. The fugitive coal dust emissions control plan 
must identify and describe the control measures the owner/operator will 
use to minimize fugitive coal dust emissions from each open storage 
pile. The owner or operator is also required to explain how the 
measures are applicable and appropriate for the site conditions. For 
open coal storage piles, the fugitive coal dust emissions plan must 
require that one or more of the following control measures will be used 
to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive coal dust: 
locating the source inside a partial enclosure, installing and 
operating a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriate 
chemical dust suppression agents on the source (when additional 
provisions discussed below are met), use of a wind barrier, compaction, 
or use of a vegetative cover. The owner or operator must select, from 
the list provided, the control measures that are most appropriate for 
the site conditions. Where appropriate chemical dust suppression agents 
are selected by the owner/operator as a control measure to minimize 
fugitive coal dust emissions, only chemical dust suppressants with 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-compliant material 
safety data sheets (MSDS) are allowed, the MSDS must be included in the 
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan, and the owner/operator must 
consider and document in the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan 
the site-specific impacts associated with the use of such chemical dust 
suppressants (e.g., water run-off, water quality concerns).
    An owner/operator may petition the Administrator requesting 
approval of a control measure other than those specified above. The 
petition process established in the final rule is similar to the 
process used in 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Db, to establish alternative 
NOX limits for certain industrial boilers. The petition must 
demonstrate to the Administrator that the alternate control measure 
will provide equivalent overall environmental protection or that it is 
either economically or technically infeasible for the affected facility 
to use the control measures specified above. The owner/operator must 
operate in accordance with the plan including the alternative measures 
and, while operating in accordance with the plan submitted with the 
petition, is deemed to be in compliance with the fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan requirements while the petition is pending. EPA 
decided to include this petition process in the final rule in response 
to comments objecting to provisions proposed in the May 2009 
supplemental proposal that would have provided for permitting authority 
approval of the fugitive coal dust emissions control plans and allowed 
the permitting authorities to approve the use of alternate technologies 
if it had been determined that the technology provides equivalent 
overall environmental protection.
    Each owner/operator must submit their fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan to the Administrator or delegated authority to provide an 
opportunity for the Administrator or delegated authority to object to 
the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan. The fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan must be submitted to the Administrator or 
delegated authority prior to the startup date for the affected 
facility. If an objection is raised, the

[[Page 51955]]

owner/operator has 30 days from receipt of the objection to submit a 
revised fugitive coal dust emissions control plan. The owner/operator 
must operate in accordance with the revised fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan. The Administrator and delegated authority 
retain the ability to object to the revised fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan.

C. Emissions Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    Based on our review of public comments submitted in response to the 
May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal and further analysis, minor 
revisions were made to certain emissions testing and monitoring 
requirements included in that supplemental proposal. The testing and 
monitoring requirements of the final rule are described below. All 
affected facilities subject to emissions limits are required to conduct 
initial emissions testing to show compliance with the limits included 
in the final rule. PM emissions must be measured with EPA Method 5, 5B, 
or 5D of 40 CFR Part 60, appendix A-4, or EPA Method 17 of 40 CFR Part 
60, appendix A-7. EPA Method 6, 6A, or 6C of 40 CFR Part 60, appendix 
A-4, must be used to measure SO2 emissions. NOX 
and CO emissions must be measured with EPA Method 7 or 7E, and Method 
10, respectively, of 40 CFR Part 60, appendix A-4. In addition, CO and 
NOX performance testing must be conducted concurrently, or 
within a 60-minute period. Initial testing for PM emissions is required 
for coal-handling equipment exhaust that is mechanically vented and for 
thermal dryer exhaust. Depending on the type of thermal dryer and its 
fuel type, initial testing for SO2, NOX, and CO 
may also be required. Following initial performance testing, the 
frequency of subsequent emissions testing is variable. If an affected 
facility, excluding thermal dryers, has a design controlled potential 
PM emissions rate, considering controls, of 1.0 Mg (1.1 tons) per year 
or less, annual performance testing is not required as long as: (1) PM 
emissions, as determined by the initial performance test, are less than 
or equal to the applicable PM limit; (2) the manufacturer's recommended 
maintenance procedures for each control device are followed; and (3) 
all 6-minute average opacity readings from the most recent Method 9 
performance test are equal to or less than half the applicable opacity 
limit.
    In addition, for similar, separate affected facilities using 
identical control equipment, the Administrator or delegated authority 
may authorize a single emissions test as adequate demonstration for up 
to four other similar, separate affected facilities as long as: (1) The 
most recent performance test for each affected facility shows that 
performance of each affected facility is 90 percent or less of the 
applicable emissions limit; (2) the manufacturer's recommended 
maintenance procedures for each control device are followed; and (3) 
each affected facility conducts a performance test for each pollutant 
for which they are subject to a limit at least once every 5 years. 
Affected facilities that, based on their most recent performance test, 
emit at a level that is 50 percent or less of an applicable emissions 
limit are only required to conduct performance testing every 24 months, 
as opposed to every 12 months. Finally, an owner/operator of an 
affected facility that has not operated for the 60 calendar days prior 
to the due date of a performance test is not required to perform the 
performance test until 30 calendar days after the next operating day.
    The final rule requires the use of bag leak detection systems on 
subpart Y affected facilities with fabric filters that have a design 
controlled potential PM emissions rate of 25 Mg (28 tons) or more. This 
requirement applies to affected facilities constructed, reconstructed, 
or modified after April 28, 2008. For affected facilities with venturi 
scrubbers, continuous measurement of the pressure loss through the 
venturi constriction of the scrubber and of the liquid flow rate to the 
scrubber is required. If the venturi scrubber is used to control 
SO2 emissions, pH of the scrubber liquor also must be 
continuously measured. For affected facilities using packed bed 
scrubbers with the addition of lime, the liquid flow rate to the 
scrubber and the scrubber liquor pH must be continuously measured. The 
final rule does not require continuous measurement of the temperature 
of the gas stream at the exit of the thermal dryer for affected 
facilities constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 
2008. In the supplemental proposal, EPA requested comment on the 
utility of collecting continuous temperature data and determined that 
the requirement can be eliminated without risk of a significant 
increase in emissions.

D. Opacity Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    Numerous comments were submitted to EPA regarding the opacity 
testing and monitoring requirements included in the May 27, 2009, 
supplemental proposal. Commenters objected to the proposed procedures 
as being unreasonable, burdensome, too complex, and confusing. Based on 
our review of public comments and further analysis, we modified the 
proposed requirements where we determined the burden could be reduced 
without compromising the integrity of the overall testing and 
monitoring requirements. We also attempted to make the requirements in 
the final rule less complex than those included in the supplemental 
proposal. All affected facilities subject to emissions limits are 
required to conduct initial emissions testing to show compliance with 
the opacity limits included in the final rule. Opacity must be measured 
with EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4. The final rule 
allows the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) as an 
alternative to all other opacity monitoring requirements. The final 
rule includes a 60-minute observation period for Method 9 performance 
testing. The observation period may be decreased from 60 minutes to 30 
minutes if, during the initial 30 minutes of the observation of a 
Method 9 performance test, all the 6-minute averages are less than or 
equal to half the applicable opacity limit. In the final rule, the 
frequency of subsequent visible emissions testing is based on the 6-
minute average opacity readings from the most recent performance test. 
Owners/operators of affected facilities where any 6-minute average 
opacity reading in the most recent Method 9 performance test exceeds 
half the applicable opacity limit are required to conduct a Method 9 
performance test within 90 days of the previous performance test. 
Owners/operators of affected facilities where all 6-minute average 
opacity readings in the most recent Method 9 performance test are equal 
to or less than half the applicable opacity limit are required to 
conduct a Method 9 performance test within 12 months of the previous 
performance test. Further, if a Method 9 opacity performance test is 
conducted concurrently with (or within a 60-minute period of) a Method 
5, 5B, or 5D PM performance test for affected sources with wet 
scrubbers that continuously monitor the specified scrubber parameters, 
no subsequent Method 9 opacity performance testing is required. The 
final rule allows simultaneous Method 9 opacity performance testing for 
up to three emissions points as long as all three emissions points are 
within a 70-degree viewing sector or angle in front of the observer 
such that the proper sun position can be maintained

[[Page 51956]]

for all three points. If an opacity reading for any one of the three 
emissions points is within 5 percent opacity from the applicable 
standard (excluding readings of zero opacity), the observer must stop 
taking readings for the other two points and continue reading just that 
single point.
    As an alternative to subsequent Method 9 performance testing, the 
final rule allows owners/operators of affected facilities to elect to 
conduct monitoring as follows: (1) Monthly visual observations of 
process and control equipment must be conducted and, if any 
deficiencies are observed, the necessary maintenance must be performed 
as expeditiously as possible; and (2) daily walkthrough observations 
consisting of a single 15-second observation (i.e., visible emissions 
or no visible emissions) of each affected facility must be conducted 
and, if any visible emissions are observed, within 24 hours corrective 
actions must be conducted and the owner/operator must demonstrate that 
there are no visible emissions. If visible emissions are still 
observed, a Method 9 performance test must be conducted within 45 
operating days to show compliance with the applicable opacity limit. 
The final rule requires that Method 9 performance testing must be 
conducted at least once every 5 years for each affected facility 
complying with this alternative monitoring option. Each observer 
determining the presence of visible emissions is required to meet the 
training requirements of Method 22 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR Part 60. 
The final rule also allows the use of a digital opacity monitoring 
system in lieu of subsequent Method 9 performance testing. The 
Administrator may approve opacity monitoring plans for owners/operators 
that elect to use the digital opacity monitoring system to detect the 
presence of visible emissions.
    The final rule includes separate opacity testing and monitoring 
requirements for coal truck dump operations. EPA determined that a 
different approach for Method 9 opacity performance testing is 
warranted due to the intermittent nature of coal truck dumping. Coal 
truck dump operations are subject to the same opacity limits as other 
coal handling operations. The final rule specifies that compliance with 
the opacity limit is determined by averaging all Method 9 15-second 
opacity readings made during the duration of three separate truck dump 
events. A truck dump event commences when the truck bed begins to 
elevate and concludes when the truck bed returns to a horizontal 
position. The final rule requires monthly visual observations of the 
truck dump equipment and, if any deficiencies are observed, the 
necessary maintenance must be conducted as expeditiously as possible. 
Subsequent Method 9 opacity performance testing using the three truck 
dump procedure is required to be conducted every 90 days.

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The final rule requires that a logbook be maintained by each owner/
operator of a coal preparation and processing plant that commences 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after April 28, 2008. The 
logbook must include records of subpart Y requirements regarding 
manufacturers' recommended maintenance procedures for process and 
control equipment, visual observations of coal-handling equipment, the 
amount and type of coal processed, the amount of chemical stabilizer or 
water purchased, the operational status of dust suppressant systems, 
compliance with a fugitive coal dust emissions control plan, BLDS 
operation, and measurement of monitoring parameters (e.g., scrubber 
pressure loss, water supply flow rate, pH of scrubber fluid).

F. Electronic Reporting

    The final rule requires owners/operators of affected facilities at 
coal preparation and processing plants to submit an electronic copy of 
all performance test reports to an EPA electronic data base (WebFIRE). 
Data entry requires access to the Internet and is expected to be 
completed by the stack testing company as part of the work that they 
are contracted to perform. Submittal to WebFIRE is required as of July 
1, 2011. For performance tests not accepted by WebFIRE, owner/operators 
are required to mail summary results directly to EPA.

G. Additional Amendments

    The final rule confirms the subpart Y title change from Coal 
Preparation Plants to Coal Preparation and Processing Plants. In 
addition to revising the definitions for coal, pneumatic coal-cleaning 
equipment, and thermal dryer as described in section III.A of this 
preamble, the final rule amends the definition for bituminous coal; 
adds definitions for anthracite, bag leak detection system, coal 
refuse, design controlled potential emissions rate, indirect thermal 
dryer, lignite, mechanical vent, operating day, potential combustion 
concentration, and subbituminous coal; and deletes the definition for 
cyclonic flow. The definition of coal refuse in the final rule has been 
modified to be consistent with the definition of coal refuse in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Da. Also, EPA is not finalizing the April 28, 2008, 
proposed revision to the definition of coal processing and conveying 
equipment, but is clarifying that equipment located at the mine face is 
not considered to be part of the coal preparation plant. In addition, 
the May 27, 2009, proposed revision to the definition of coal storage 
system is also not being promulgated. Rather, the final rule adds a 
definition for open storage pile.

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

    As explained in Section II of this preamble, EPA proposed 
amendments to the coal preparation plants NSPS on April 28, 2008, (73 
FR 22901) and received a total of 42 comments from coal preparation 
plants, industry trade associations, control technology vendors, 
environmental groups, and State environmental agencies. After reviewing 
those comments and considering additional data, EPA decided to publish 
a supplemental proposal (see 74 FR 25304, May 27, 2009) which revised 
some of the requirements proposed on April 28, 2008. A total of 44 
comments regarding the supplemental proposal were received from coal 
preparation plants, other types of industrial facilities, industry 
associations, environmental groups, and State environmental agencies. 
Responses to comments regarding the April 28, 2008, proposal are not 
discussed in this preamble. In many instances, the May 27, 2009, 
supplemental proposal either addressed the comment or made revisions 
that negated the comment. Significant comments received regarding the 
May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal and EPA's responses to those 
comments are discussed below. Detailed responses to the comments not 
included in this preamble, including responses to the comments 
regarding the April 28, 2008, proposal, are contained in the Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses document which is included in the docket 
for this rulemaking.

A. Regulated Pollutants

    Comment: Many commenters stated that EPA's authority to promulgate 
NSPS requires an endangerment finding for the coal preparation plant 
source category and the pollutant(s) of interest. Because EPA has not 
made such a finding for SO2, NOX, or CO emissions 
from coal preparation plants, the commenters contend that emissions 
standards for SO2, NOX, or CO

[[Page 51957]]

applicable to coal preparation plants under subpart Y cannot be set.
    Response: CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to 
publish a list of categories of stationary sources and include a 
category of sources on that list if he finds that ``in his judgment it 
causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' 42 
U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A) (CAA section 111(b)(1)(A)). The plain language of 
section 111(b)(1)(A) provides that such findings are to be made for 
source categories, not for specific pollutants emitted by the source 
category. Therefore, once the Administrator determines that the source 
category causes or contributes significantly to air pollution which may 
endanger public health or welfare, the Administrator must add the 
source category to the section 111(b)(1)(A) list and subsequently 
establish standards of performance for the sources in that source 
category. Determinations regarding the specific pollutants to be 
regulated are made, not in the initial endangerment finding, but at the 
time the performance standards are promulgated. In addition, CAA 
section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA to review and revise, if appropriate, 
the standards at least every eight years. In conducting that review, 
EPA has discretion to revisit its original determination regarding 
which pollutants emitted from the source category should be regulated. 
Neither the text of the CAA nor subsequent statements of EPA provide 
any support for the argument that an endangerment finding must be made 
for specific pollutants or for the argument that the scope of the 
revised NSPS must be limited to the pollutants (or affected facilities) 
regulated in the initial NSPS.
    The text of section 111(b)(1)(A) provides no support for the 
argument that section 111 endangerment findings must be made for each 
pollutant emitted by the source category before that pollutant can be 
regulated in the NSPS. In contrast, the statutory text calls for a list 
of ``categories of stationary sources.'' It does not require, at the 
time of listing, an identification of all the specific pollutants 
emitted by the source category that may endanger public health or 
welfare. Instead, it requires only a general determination that 
emissions from the category cause or contribute to air pollution that 
may endanger public health or welfare. The endangerment finding is used 
to identify categories of sources for regulation, not to dictate the 
substantive content of the required standards of performance. The 
endangerment finding neither requires regulation of each pollutant 
emitted by the source category, nor limits EPA's discretion to 
determine (in the initial regulation or in subsequent revisions) which 
pollutants should be regulated.
    Instead, section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the Administrator, after 
publishing proposed regulations and providing an opportunity for 
comment, to promulgate such standards as the Administrator ``deems 
appropriate.'' The statutory scheme thus provides EPA with significant 
discretion to determine which pollutant(s) should be regulated under 
the NSPS. The Agency has long interpreted section 111(b)(1)(B) as 
providing the Administrator with this flexibility. See National Lime 
Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 426 n.27 (DC Cir. 1980) (explaining 
reasons for not promulgating standards for NOX, 
SO2 and CO from lime plants); see also National Assoc. of 
Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228-1230 (DC Cir. 2007) 
(finding that the ``deems appropriate'' language in CAA section 231 
provides a ``delegation of authority'' that is ``both explicit and 
extraordinarily broad'').
    EPA has, in prior NSPS rulemakings, exercised its discretion to 
identify pollutants for regulation. It has sometimes exercised this 
discretion to defer regulation of specific pollutants to a later date. 
See, e.g., 52 FR 36678, 36682 (September 30, 1987) (noting in subpart 
DDD proposal that ``standards development for this industry is focusing 
initially on limiting emissions of VOC''); 49 FR 2656, 2659 (Jan 20, 
1984) (explaining why SO2 and VOC were the only pollutants 
in the natural gas production industry selected for regulation under 
subpart LLL ``at this time.''); 48 FR 37338, 37340-42 (Aug. 17, 1983) 
(declining to regulate in subpart AAa, emissions of pollutants for 
which adequately demonstrated control technology was not currently 
available). EPA has also exercised this discretion to promulgate, 
during 8-year review rulemakings, new performance standards for 
pollutants not previously covered by the NSPS in question. See, e.g., 
52 FR 24624, 24710 (July 1, 1987) (considering PM10 controls 
in future rulemakings); 71 FR 9866 (Feb. 27, 2006) (establishing new PM 
standards for boilers); 73 FR 35838 (June 24, 2008) (adding 
NOX limits for fluid catalytic cracking units, 
NOX limits for fluid coking units and NOX limits 
for process heaters to the refineries NSPS). In addition, EPA has 
previously noted its disagreement with comments implying that an 
additional endangerment finding would be required to support regulation 
of a pollutant not previously regulated in that specific NSPS. See, 
e.g., 73 FR 35838, 35859 n2 (June 24, 2008).
    Further, the argument that EPA must issue a separate endangerment 
finding before regulating a pollutant not previously regulated in the 
NSPS for a source category is illogical. Once EPA has determined that a 
source category causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution 
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 
welfare emissions from a source category, the recognition that the 
source has emissions above and beyond those discussed in the original 
endangerment finding could only serve to strengthen the basis for the 
endangerment finding for the source category. Further, the listing of 
the source category is only the first step in the process. Once the 
finding is made, the statute allows the more detailed analysis of which 
pollutants are actually emitted and should be regulated to be conducted 
in the rulemaking process used promulgate and revise the standards for 
the source category.
    Finally, it is worth noting that EPA previously addressed this 
topic in the context of the subpart Y NSPS for coal preparation and 
processing plants. Coal preparation plants were listed under section 
111(b)(1)(A) on October 24, 1974, pursuant to the Administrator's 
determination that such plants ``may contribute significantly to air 
pollution which causes or contributes to the endangerment of public 
health or welfare.'' 39 FR 37,807 (Oct. 24, 1974). The Background 
Information Document for the subpart Y standards proposed at that time 
explains the process to be used for setting NSPS and explicitly notes 
that ``[a]lthough a source category may be selected to be covered by a 
standard of performance, treatment of some of the pollutants of 
facilities within that source category may be deferred.'' Background 
Information for Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants 
Volume 1: Proposed Standards at ix.
    For these reasons, EPA disagrees with the comment suggesting that 
EPA cannot set SO2, NOX, or CO emissions 
standards applicable to coal preparation plants under subpart Y.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should recognize its 
obligation to promulgate NSPS for emissions of carbon dioxide 
(CO2), nitric oxide (N2O), and black carbon (a 
component of PM) from coal preparation and processing plants. The 
commenter asserts that because these pollutants are the result of 
incomplete fuel combustion, they are emitted at coal prep plants, 
particularly by thermal dryers heated by coal or other fossil fuels. 
Emissions of each pollutant, the

[[Page 51958]]

commenter asserts, carries individual and distinct risks and is 
controlled by different technologies so EPA must fully analyze each 
pollutant and set separate NSPS for each.
    Response: At this time EPA is not aware of any emissions or 
mitigation data for the pollutants noted by the commenter for this 
source category. Hence, we lack sufficient information on which to base 
an NSPS for emissions of CO2, N2O, and black 
carbon from the source category at this time. Rough estimates of 
CO2 from this source category suggest that this source 
category would be among the smaller CO2-emitting NSPS 
categories. At this time, we are not making any final determination 
regarding whether it would be appropriate to set such standards.
    In addition, to the extent the comment suggests that EPA should 
utilize its authority under other provisions of the CAA to require 
sources to gather and report GHG emissions and to the extent it raises 
issues not opened for public comment in the supplemental proposal, it 
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    Comment: One commenter asserts that CAA section 111 carries a 
mandate for EPA to set NSPS for the pollutants emitted by a source. The 
commenter cites to language in section 111(a)(3) that defines a 
stationary sources as any building, structure, facility or installation 
which emits or may emit any air pollution and language in section 
111(b)(4) defining a modification as a physical or operational change 
which increases the amount of any air pollution emitted by the source. 
In addition, the commenter cites to the Supreme Court's decision in 
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 529 (2007) and EPA's April 2009 
Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 
Gases (74 FR 18886 (Apr. 24, 2009)).
    Response: The Agency has long exercised its discretion to regulate 
only a subset of the pollutants emitted by a source category or to 
defer regulation of certain pollutants to a later date. See e.g., 
National Lime Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 426 n.27 (DC Cir. 1980) 
(explaining reasons for not promulgating standards for NOX, 
SO2, and CO from lime plants); National Assoc. of Clean Air 
Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228-1230 (DC Cir. 2007) (finding that 
the ``deems appropriate'' language in CAA section 231 provides a 
``delegation of authority'' that is ``both explicit and extraordinarily 
broad''); 52 FR 36678, 36682 (September 30, 1987) (explaining Subpart 
DDD standards' initial focus on limiting emissions of VOC); 49 FR 2656, 
2659 (January 20, 1984) (explaining Subpart LLL regulates only 
emissions of SO2 and VOC); 48 FR 37338, 37340-42 (August 17, 
1983) (explaining why Subpart AAa does not regulate emissions of 
pollutants for which adequately demonstrated control technology was not 
currently available).

B. Applicability and Definitions

    Comment: Many commenters stated that EPA proposed to add 
``processing'' to the title of subpart Y and, although EPA indicated in 
the preamble to the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal, that it did 
not intend to change the applicability of subpart Y, the commenters are 
concerned that EPA has not adequately justified the need to make the 
change. Subpart Y already defines ``processing equipment'' as 
``machinery used to reduce the size of coal or to separate coal from 
refuse.'' Despite EPA's stated intentions, commenters believe that the 
risk exists that EPA, in future applicability interpretations, will 
determine that additional, non-preparation operations meet the meaning 
of processing, and will thereby bring them under subpart Y purview. To 
avoid confusion, the commenters stated that EPA should remove 
``processing'' from the title.
    Response: In the preamble to the supplemental proposal, EPA 
indicated that the proposed title change was for clarification purposes 
(i.e., to more accurately reflect the affected facilities subject to 
subpart Y). The affected facilities covered by subpart Y since its 1976 
promulgation include both preparation and processing units. We do not 
intend the title change to have any impact on the extent of EPA's 
authority to regulate specific affected facilities now or in the 
future. The final action promulgates the proposed title change 
``Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing 
Plants.''
    Comment: Many commenters acknowledged that in its May 27, 2009, 
supplemental action, EPA proposed to amend the definition of ``coal'' 
to include ``coal refuse'' and ``petroleum coke.'' These commenters 
objected to EPA's proposed inclusion of ``coal refuse'' because its 
inclusion further expands the subpart Y applicability with no data 
specific to ``coal refuse'' on what constitutes adequately demonstrated 
technologies and their respective levels of achievable emissions. 
Specifically, one commenter is concerned that subpart Y's definition of 
``coal refuse'' could create the potential for the unintended 
application of such definition to the overburden from surface mines or 
to mine-development waste associated with underground mining. The 
commenter stated that the final rule must make clear that the 
definition of ``coal refuse'' does not apply to these types of 
operations and suggested using the SMCRA definition instead (Coal 
refuse is defined as ``any waste coal, rock, shale, slurry, culm, gob, 
boney, slate, clay and related materials, associated with or near a 
coal seam, which are either brought aboveground or otherwise removed 
from a coal mine in the process of mining coal or which are separated 
from coal during the cleaning or preparation operations. The term 
includes underground development wastes, coal processing wastes, excess 
spoil, but does not mean overburden from surface mining activities''). 
In contrast, several other commenters stated either that they support, 
or that they have no objections to, including ``coal refuse'' in the 
definition of ``coal'' for subpart Y.
    Response: EPA is including ``coal refuse'' in the final rule's 
definition of ``coal'' for the purposes of subpart Y because it is 
handled in the same machinery as other types of coal at coal 
preparation and processing plants. ``Coal refuse'' is separately 
defined, as well as included in the definition of ``coal'' in other 
NSPS (e.g., 40 CFR part 60 subparts Da and Db), and its inclusion here 
provides consistency with other EPA regulations. EPA has modified the 
definition of ``coal refuse'' in subpart Y to be consistent with the 
definition in 40 CFR subpart Da. Given the historical inclusion of 
``coal refuse'' in these other NSPS and the fact that the constituents 
and emission characteristics of ``coal'' and ``coal refuse'' are 
believed to be the same, EPA has concluded that inclusion of ``coal 
refuse'' in subpart Y is appropriate.
    Comment: Many commenters objected to EPA extending the 
applicability of subpart Y to facilities producing petroleum coke by 
adding ``petroleum coke'' to the subpart Y definition of ``coal''. They 
noted that the emission standards in the May 27, 2009, supplemental 
proposal appear to have been developed primarily for coal processing 
plants, and do not seem to reflect the differences between coal and 
petroleum coke, or contemplate the emissions associated with petroleum 
coke handling operations. Without more information on these emissions, 
the commenters contend that it is inappropriate for EPA to broaden the 
definition of ``coal'' to include ``petroleum coke'' in this final 
rulemaking at this time. However, if ``petroleum coke'' is included, 
several commenters recommended petroleum

[[Page 51959]]

coke operations that should be specifically exempted from being subject 
to subpart Y. Reasons cited by commenters include: (1) ``Petroleum 
coke'' is a petroleum product that should not be subject to a rule 
(i.e., NSPS subpart Y) intended to pertain to standards of performance 
for coal preparation and processing plants; (2) petroleum refining 
operations that include petroleum coke production are subject to 
numerous NSPS rules to ensure protection of public health and the 
environment, to two separate maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) rules specific to air emissions from process units, including 
petroleum coke production, and to the NSR permitting process to ensure 
compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM; 
(3) EPA did not provide adequate notice that petroleum coke 
manufacturing equipment (e.g., refinery coker units) was being 
considered for new standards; (4) EPA neither gathered or requested 
data to determine if petroleum coke manufacturing equipment should be 
included in the affected sources subject to subpart Y; and (5) 
standards for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage 
systems, and transfer and loading system operations are not suitable 
for petroleum coke.
    Two commenters suggested that EPA change the approach to include 
end-user petroleum coke processing in the existing NSPS for Coal 
Preparation and Processing Plants by retaining the existing definition 
of ``coal'' and adding ``petroleum coke'' as a separate material with 
associated provisions. If EPA expands the source category by including 
facilities that handle only ``petroleum coke'' (and not ``coal''), the 
commenters believe it should do so only for end-users of ``petroleum 
coke'' used as fuel. Numerous commenters presented arguments that 
petroleum coke calciners are not same as coal thermal dryers and, 
therefore, believe it is inappropriate to apply the subpart Y thermal 
dryer standards to coke calciners. The commenters explained that the 
purpose and function of a petroleum coke calciner is to fundamentally 
change the material by rearranging carbon molecules and, thus, it acts 
as a reactor, not a ``dryer''. In addition, commenters noted that 
calciners in the petroleum industry operate at much higher temperatures 
than typical coal dryers, intuitively would have different emission 
profiles, and use different methods than coal thermal dryers to control 
PM emissions.
    Response: Based on a review of the comments received and because of 
the limited amount of currently available data, EPA has decided not to 
include ``petroleum coke'' in the subpart Y definition of ``coal'' at 
this time. EPA plans on obtaining additional data on petroleum coking 
activities at petroleum refineries through current actions on the 
refinery NSPS review (40 CFR part 60 subpart J). In addition, 
additional data will also be obtained on petroleum coke activities at 
end-user locations (e.g., coal-fired power plants).
    Comment: Several commenters supported EPA's proposal to distinguish 
between indirect and direct contact thermal dryers. The commenters 
anticipate that more electric utilities will use indirect contact 
thermal dryers in the future. Commenters agreed with EPA's decision to 
exclude indirect thermal dryers from the coal dryer SO2 and 
NOX/CO standards ``[i]f the source of heat (the source of 
combustion or furnace) is subject to a boiler NSPS (subpart Da, Db, or 
Dc). However, one commenter stated that in the case of one facility, 
the waste heat being used for the facility's coal dryer does not come 
from the exhaust gases of a boiler, but rather from the condensing 
water from steam turbines. In that case, there is no affected source to 
which the combustion pollutant emission limits can apply. Thus, the 
commenter agreed that the thermal dryer would only be subject to the PM 
limit, but not because it is subject to another NSPS. The commenter 
further stated their belief that subpart Y coal dryer emission limits 
should not apply to the source of heat for an indirect thermal dryer.
    Response: It is EPA's intent to regulate, at this time, emissions 
from thermal dryers only in circumstances where coal, coal refuse, or 
residual oil are used to provide thermal input. Thermal dryers that use 
residual or waste heat from the combustion of these fuels are only 
subject to the PM and opacity standards. As pointed out by the 
commenters, indirect thermal dryers for which the source of heat is 
subject to a boiler NSPS are not subject to the emission limits for 
SO2 and NOX/CO because those pollutants would not 
be present in the thermal dryer exhaust. In addition, EPA has concluded 
that affected thermal dryers for which all of the thermal input is 
supplied by gaseous fuels (e.g., blast furnace gas, coke oven gas, 
natural gas) or distillate oil also should not be subject to the 
emission limits for SO2 and NOX/CO. Those 
pollutants are relatively small from these types of thermal dryers and 
the testing requirements will not result in any emissions reductions. 
As is the case with the facility described by the commenter, if there 
is no combustion process providing the heat for the dryer, then there 
is no practicality in having emission limits for SO2 and 
NOX/CO.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that emissions from thermal 
dryers integrated with in-line coal mills at cement manufacturing 
plants should not be subject to subpart Y and instead be subject to the 
standard for the affected facility as part of the cement manufacturing 
process. According to the commenters, the unique coal processing and 
handling systems found at Portland cement plants are best addressed by 
the Portland Cement NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart F) and NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart LLL). The commenters requested that the subpart Y 
definition of ``thermal dryer'' be revised to read ``Thermal dryer does 
not include drying of coal that occurs intentionally or incidentally in 
the manufacture of Portland cement through direct or indirect contact 
with hot gases generated by cement manufacturing process units, such as 
cement kilns, preheaters, precalciners, or clinker coolers.'' 
Commenters explained that this approach would (a) clearly distinguish 
between separately fired, stand-alone thermal dryers that are located 
at a cement plant, versus thermal dryers or coal mills that are 
integrated into a cement manufacturing line, and (b) avoid any 
potential confusion about incidental drying of coal that occurs in the 
cement-making process. Reasons presented by commenters to support the 
requested exemption are summarized below.
     In a 1995 determination, EPA stated that when ``gases 
originate in one affected facility and pass through another affected 
facility as part of the manufacturing process, EPA applies the standard 
for the affected facility from which the gases are discharged directly 
into the atmosphere.'' [Applicability Determination 9600082 
``Alternative Monitoring and Opacity Limit Clarification for San Juan 
Cement Company,'' John B. Rasnic (May 12, 1995)]. However, a year later 
EPA qualified this guidance when it concluded that an in-line raw mill 
was subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, kiln standards, stating 
''This determination clarifies that for dry process Portland cement 
plants with an ``in-line'' kiln/raw mill configuration, the raw mill 
does not exist as a separate affected facility and; hence, the 
appropriate emission limit is that which applies to the kiln.'' 
[Applicability Determination 9600083; ``Opacity Limitation for `In-
line' Portland Cement Plants,'' John B. Rasnic (September 7, 1996)].
     Just as emissions from the in-line raw mill in 
Applicability Determination

[[Page 51960]]

9600083 were subject to 40 CFR Part 60, subpart F, NSPS, PM mass and 
opacity limitations for cement kilns, so should emissions from an in-
line coal mill at a cement plant where kiln gases are used to heat and 
dry the coal be treated as an extension of the kiln and subject to 
subpart F NSPS and 40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL, NESHAP cement kiln PM 
and opacity limits. This approach is consistent with multiple different 
applicability determinations stating that kiln exhaust gases are 
subject to the Portland cement NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) 
regardless of whether they are routed through the coal mill prior to 
discharge to the atmosphere. It is also consistent with the data that 
EPA has reviewed in establishing the proposed subpart Y limits. In the 
absence of data related to emissions from in-line coal mills, EPA would 
not have a rational basis supported by evidence in the record for 
establishing limits that apply to these unique gas streams.
     As Portland cement plants have striven to increase energy 
efficiency, a common plant configuration has been to employ kiln 
exhaust gas or heated gas from the plant's clinker cooler to thermally 
dry coal before it is combusted. Cement kiln exhaust gas is extremely 
hot, and one of the primary means of improving energy efficiency has 
been to route this gas back through the process to extract as much heat 
as reasonably possible. Likewise, the product leaving the kiln 
(referred to as clinker) will enter a cooling area where gases are 
blown through the clinker to accelerate the cooling process. In some 
plants this heated gas is then used to heat the coal entering the 
combustion process. Both kilns and clinker coolers are affected 
facilities under 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, NSPS. The use of waste heat 
from the kiln or the clinker cooler is highly energy efficient, driving 
down the combustion emissions, including GHG emissions, from the plant 
as a whole.
     Some cement plants have stand-alone thermal dryers for 
coal, where the heat for drying is provided by a dedicated combustion 
source (e.g., coal or natural gas). Those thermal dryers generally 
should have similar emissions, and similar possibilities for emissions 
control, as comparable-size thermal coal dryers at other facilities. 
But where coal drying is integrated into the cement-making process, 
through direct or indirect exposure of the coal to heat in exhaust 
gases from units such as cement kilns, preheater/precalciners, or 
clinker coolers, the emissions from that coal drying, and the potential 
for controlling those emissions, is very different from a stand-alone 
thermal dryer.
     To the extent that subpart Y may apply to coal drying that 
occurs using waste heat from the manufacture of Portland cement, EPA's 
assessments of control technology and derivation of emission standards 
under subpart Y have not taken into account cement-process-related 
loadings of SO2, NOX, and CO. EPA has not shown, 
for example, that it would be feasible for a cement plant to 
demonstrate compliance with SO2 mass limits or percent 
reduction requirements where exhaust gases from coal drying are 
combined with cement kiln gases, which include SO2 from fuel 
consumption and from raw materials. Similarly, NOX limits 
that may be achievable through combustion controls on a standalone 
thermal dryer may not be achievable in exhaust gases mixed with cement 
kiln gases containing both fuel NOX and thermal 
NOX from the cement-making process.
     The supplemental proposal would not impose SO2, 
NOX, and CO limits on indirect thermal dryers where the 
source of the heat is subject to NSPS under 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Da, 
Db, or Dc. Although EPA has not really explained the basis for that 
exclusion, it is inferred that EPA believes the BDT determinations 
associated with the NSPS for the source of heat are more appropriate 
and should be applied. The same rationale should be applied to thermal 
drying that is incidental to cement manufacturing, and EPA should 
exclude exhaust gases that are subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
F, NSPS from being subject to the subpart Y SO2, 
NOX, and CO limits.
    Response: EPA agrees that in the case of a coal dryer at a cement 
manufacturing facility where all of the thermal input is supplied by 
cement kiln exhaust or clinker cooler exhaust, the dryer should be 
regulated under the appropriate Portland Cement kiln regulations (40 
CFR part 60, subpart F, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). This would 
also imply that any emissions from the thermal dryer are considered as 
part of the kiln or clinker cooler emissions. The final rule's 
emissions limits apply to new, reconstructed, or modified thermal 
dryers at Portland cement manufacturing plants in situations where the 
thermal input is not supplied by cement kiln or clinker cooler exhaust. 
Other subpart Y affected facilities located at Portland cement 
manufacturing plants (e.g., storage systems, conveyors) also are 
subject to subpart Y.
    Comment: One commenter requested that thermal dryers fired with 
process gases at integrated iron and steel plants be exempted from the 
subpart Y emission limits for SO2 and NOX/CO. 
Reasons presented by commenter to support the requested exemption are 
summarized below.
     The pulverized coal injection systems at some integrated 
iron and steel plants also burn process gases (i.e., blast furnace gas 
or coke oven gas) as the primary fuel in thermal dryers. These process 
gases are valuable substitutes for other sources of purchased energy 
and are produced on-site. However, they have lower heating values than 
natural gas and must be consumed on-site to be utilized most 
effectively, or be flared. As is the case for waste heat, the use of 
these gases improves overall plant energy efficiency and reduces GHG 
emissions and should not be discouraged by applying unachievable 
emission limits when used for thermal drying of coal.
     The use of these process gases for coal drying will not 
generate any more emissions than if the gases are combusted elsewhere 
or flared. Instead, if the process gases burned for coal drying were 
replaced entirely by burning natural gas, emissions (mainly 
NOX and CO) from the integrated iron and steel plant would 
actually increase. Establishing emission limits for thermal dryers 
using these process gas fuels will only serve to discourage their use.
     The proposed subpart Y standards are based on the 
assumption that thermal dryers located at traditional mine sites and 
coal preparation plants are typically fired with coal, but in the 
examples noted above, other fuels are normally used. At the very least, 
the final rule should include a provision to allow operators of thermal 
dryers fired by natural gas, waste heat, or process gases to apply for 
a variance upon demonstration that emissions of SO2, 
NOX, CO and/or PM are well below the prescribed standards. 
Upon such a demonstration, monitoring requirements for these pollutants 
should be reduced or eliminated.
    Response: As previously noted, EPA has maintained that coal 
preparation and processing plants may be found at industrial sites such 
as those described by the commenter. In the Response to Comments 
document for the October 24, 1974, proposal, EPA stated ``[t]he 
specific coal processing operations regulated by these standards are 
affected regardless of whether they are located in coal liquefaction 
plants, power plants, coke ovens, etc.'' (see ``Background Information 
for Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants; Volume 3: 
Supplemental Information. January 1976. p. 22). Thus, EPA has not

[[Page 51961]]

changed its interpretation. In addition, EPA has made no assumptions as 
to the source of the heat used in the thermal dryer as the commenter 
suggests. However, as noted above for Portland cement plants, EPA 
agrees that in the case of an affected source at an integrated iron and 
steel manufacturing facility, where the emissions from the thermal 
dryer would be considered as part of the blast furnace or coke oven 
emissions, the facility should be regulated under the appropriate steel 
mill or coke oven NSPS. As previously explained, EPA's intent at this 
time is to regulate emissions from a thermal dryer only in 
circumstances where coal, coal refuse, or residual oil are used as 
thermal input. Thermal dryers that use residual or waste heat from the 
combustion of these fuels would only be subject to the PM and opacity 
standards. Indirect thermal dryers for which the source of heat is 
subject to SO2, NOX, and/or CO limits under 
another 40 CFR part 60 subpart would not be subject to the emission 
limits for SO2 and NOX/CO. In addition, affected 
thermal dryers for which all of the thermal input is supplied by 
gaseous fuels (e.g., blast furnace gas, coke oven gas, natural gas) or 
distillate oil also would not be subject to the emission limits for 
SO2 and NOX/CO.

C. Subcategorization

    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that when establishing 
standards of performance for new stationary sources under the CAA, 
section 111(b)(2) authorizes the Administrator to ``distinguish among 
classes, types and sizes within categories of new sources.'' The 
commenters requested that the final amendments to subpart Y include a 
distinction between the regulatory requirements for coal preparation 
plants associated with coal mines (i.e., the ``producers'') and for 
coal preparation plants at coal-fired power plants and large industrial 
sources such as cement manufacturing and coke ovens (i.e., the 
``users''). The commenters cited the following regulatory requirement 
and facility characteristics distinctions between coal producers and 
coal users to support their request.
     Most new coal-fired power plants as well as large 
industrial coal-fired sources (i.e., the ``users'') in the future will 
be major sources of PM emissions and, therefore, be required to use 
state-of-the-art control technologies (i.e., best available control 
technology (BACT)). In contrast, surface coal mines with coal 
preparation facilities as well as stand-alone coal preparation 
facilities associated with coal mines (i.e., the ``producers'') are 
typically minor sources and will not be subject to BACT under the 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program but rather to 
control technology requirements of Minor New Source Review (NSR) 
programs of individual States. Thus, adoption of industry sectors-based 
subcategorized emission standards for subpart Y should be considered so 
that a BACT level of control is not mandated as NSPS for ``producers.''
     Resource requirements to maintain and demonstrate 
compliance with the subpart Y emission standards is a function of the 
number of affected facilities at a particular coal preparation plant. 
Coal preparation plants of ``producers'' tend to have more sizing, 
cleaning and overall ``handling'' operations than the typical 
preparation plant at a coal-fired ``user.'' Consequently, as a general 
rule, the total number of affected facilities at a ``producer's'' coal 
preparation plant will be greater than the number of such facilities at 
the preparation plant of a ``user.'' Moreover, a single affected 
facility associated with coal mining can frequently have multiple 
points of fugitive emissions. With more affected facilities per source 
and more emission points per affected facility, preparation plants 
associated with coal mining generally will have much greater 
monitoring/recordkeeping/reporting requirements than will its 
preparation counterparts at coal-fired ``user'' sources.
     Fugitive dust from surface coal mines is already regulated 
by U.S. Department of the Interior regulations in 30 CFR Parts 700-899 
under authority of SMCRA, and the existing air pollution control 
requirements imposed on coal mines by SMCRA must be accounted for. 
Commenters believe that an EPA examination of SMCRA's dust control 
requirements in the context of possible NSPS regulation of preparation 
facilities at coal mines would result in a conclusion that concurrent 
regulation with similar CAA requirements is not appropriate.
    Response: The subpart Y NSPS covers coal preparation and processing 
plants that may be found, as the commenter notes, both at mine sites 
(``producers'') and at industrial sites (``users''). In the Response to 
Comments document for the October 24, 1974, proposal, EPA stated 
``[t]he specific coal processing operations regulated by these 
standards are affected regardless of whether they are located in coal 
liquefaction plants, power plants, coke ovens, etc.'' (See ``Background 
Information for Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants; 
Volume 3: Supplemental Information.'' January 1976. p. 22.)
    Commenters' request that EPA create a separate category for coal 
preparation and processing facilities at ``producers'' appears to be 
based on the assertion that these facilities should not be required to 
install and operate emissions control technologies that are currently 
in use or will be used at coal preparation and processing facilities at 
``users.'' A primary objective of CAA section 111, however, is to 
require new sources to be built using the best system of emissions 
reduction that has been adequately demonstrated. Under CAA section 111, 
EPA is required to set standards of performance (i.e., standards that 
reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 
application of the best system of emission reduction). As the Court has 
noted, ``Section 111 looks toward what may fairly be projected for the 
regulated future, rather than the state of the art at present, since it 
is addressed to standards for new plants.'' Portland Cement, 486 F.2d 
at 391. In developing NSPS standards, EPA must identify all 
technologies in use or being developed for use to determine that the 
Administrator determinations have been adequately demonstrated. This 
analysis must take into account the cost of achieving the reductions 
and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements. This analysis is separate and distinct from any BACT 
analysis that may be done for an individual plant. Finally, EPA 
disagrees with the comment to the extent it suggests that EPA should 
not consider technologies determined to be BACT for an individual plant 
in its BDT analyses. Control technologies change and can improve over 
time and EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate for EPA to 
ignore these developments when evaluating what currently constitutes 
BDT for this source category.
    The commenters point out that preparation plants associated with 
coal mining generally have more affected facilities per source and more 
emission points per affected facility. Commenters have not suggested, 
however, and EPA has no reason to believe, that the types of emissions 
from coal preparation and processing sources associated with coal mines 
differ from the types of emissions from those same source types at 
``user'' facilities. They further have not demonstrated, and EPA has no 
reason to believe, that emission control technologies that are 
adequately demonstrated for facilities at ``user'' facilities would not 
be adequately demonstrated for use at facilities located at mines. 
Thus, EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to regulate these

[[Page 51962]]

sources in the same manner and sees no need to establish subcategories 
at this point. Further, the comment could be read to suggest that a 
separate subcategory should be created for facilities at mines because 
these facilities are subject to differences in the degree of control 
required by other regulations or because these facilities are currently 
achieving different levels of control or using different emission 
control technologies. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to 
create a separate subcategory on these bases. Further, these factors do 
not affect what technologies could be found to be ``adequately 
demonstrated'' or the emission reductions available from those 
technologies.
    In addition, the regulation of fugitive dust from surface coal 
mines under SMCRA by the Department of Interior does not, as commenters 
suggest, result in a ``conclusion that concurrent regulation with 
similar CAA requirements would not be appropriate.''
    The October 1974 Background Information Document stated that ``Coal 
preparation'' is a segment of the coal industry that encompasses 
operations between the mining of raw coal and the distribution of 
product coal. (See ``Background Information for Standards of 
Performance: Coal Preparation Plants; Volume 1: Proposed Standards. 
October 1974. p. 1.) The support document for the April 1981 NSPS 
review states that ``[t]he first step in the coal preparation process 
is the delivery of ROM [run of mine] coal to the plant site.'' (See ``A 
Review of Standards of Performance for new Stationary Sources--Coal 
Preparation Plants. December 1980. p. 2-3.)
    EPA's Office of Water has included the following definitions in 
their regulations for the coal mining industry (at 40 CFR 434.11).
    (b) The term ``active mining area'' means the area, on and beneath 
land, used or disturbed in activity related to the extraction, removal, 
or recovery of coal from its natural deposits. This term excludes coal 
preparation plants, coal preparation plant associated areas and post-
mining areas.
    (e) The term ``coal preparation plant'' means a facility where coal 
is subjected to cleaning, concentrating, or other processing or 
preparation in order to separate coal from its impurities and then is 
loaded for transit to a consuming facility.

Thus, EPA, in both the air and water offices, has maintained a 
distinction between the ``active mining area'' and the ``coal 
preparation plant.'' The process of ``coal preparation'' generally 
involves, among other things, separation of coal from impurities (i.e., 
``breaking'' or ``crushing''). As discussed in the response to comment 
3.4.1.1.1 in the Response to Comments Document, EPA interprets the 
``beginning'' of the ``coal preparation plant'' to be the first hopper 
(i.e., ``drop point'') for receipt of coal from any form of 
transportation.

D. Coal Drying Standards

    Comment: Two commenters supported EPA's decisions not to set 
separate limits for fine PM (FPM) (i.e., PM2.5 or 
PM10) or condensable PM (CPM). In contrast, another 
commenter rejected EPA's rationale presented in the May 27, 2009, 
supplemental proposal that EPA cannot set limits applicable to 
PM10, PM2.5, and CPM emissions because EPA has 
insufficient data and lacks a consistent measurement methodology to 
collect the needed data. The commenter stated that EPA's failure to 
gather such data does not excuse EPA from a statutory obligation, that 
FPM and CPM emissions standards can be set pending resolution of any 
measurement issues by a future date certain, and, should EPA conclude 
that an inability to accurately measure emissions of FPM and CPM from 
dryers renders the implementation of FPM or CPM standards of 
performance infeasible, EPA must impose a design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof.
    Response: EPA stands by the rationale presented in the May 27, 
2009, subpart Y supplemental proposal notice. That is, the available PM 
emissions data for thermal dryers collected by EPA were measured using 
EPA Method 5 (see 40 CFR 60, appendix A-3). For this method, solid FPM 
is collected isokinetically on a filter media (typically glass or 
quartz fiber) and is then measured gravimetrically to determine FPM 
emissions. Method 5, when performed correctly, provides an accurate 
measurement of total FPM (for PM > 0.3 [mu]), but does not measure FPM 
emissions by particle size distribution (i.e., PM10 or 
PM2.5), nor does the method measure CPM. EPA is revising 
existing test methods, EPA Method 201A--Determination of 
PM10 Emissions (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure) and EPA 
Method 202--Determination of Condensible Particulate Emissions from 
Stationary Sources, to provide test methods that will accurately 
measure PM10, PM2.5, and CPM from stationary 
sources such as coal thermal dryers. Amendments to these test methods 
were proposed on March 26, 2009 (see 74 FR 12970). The amendments to 
Method 201A add a particle-sizing device to allow for sampling of 
PM2.5, PM10, or both PM10 and 
PM2.5. The amendments to Method 202 revise the sample 
collection and recovery procedures of the method to provide for more 
accurate and precise measurement of CPM. Methods 201A and 202 are not 
yet finalized and sufficient test data using these methods has not yet 
been collected for coal-fired thermal dryers. For these reasons, EPA is 
not currently able to determine whether or not it would be appropriate 
to add separate PM emission limits to subpart Y for PM2.5, 
PM10, or CPM emissions from coal-fired thermal dryers and 
would not currently be able to establish national standards to address 
PM2.5, PM10, or CPM emissions.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's rationale for not 
setting coal dryer VOC standards. Specifically, the commenter disagrees 
with (1) EPA's decision to not set standards for VOC and CO that 
reflect use of a gas recirculation thermal dryers, although EPA asserts 
that VOC and CO emissions would be minimized because new thermal dryers 
are likely to use a gas recirculation design; (2) EPA's assertion that 
not setting a standard for VOC is reasonable because by setting an 
emissions limit that contains a CO emissions rate, the VOC emissions 
that result from incomplete combustion also are minimized; and (3) 
EPA's assertions that VOC standards cannot be established because a 
method of control beyond combustion controls has not been identified 
and the variability of VOC emissions from the coal bed preclude 
determination of a standard that would be achievable nationwide.
    Response: EPA has discretion to determine which pollutants are 
appropriate for regulation in a particular NSPS. In this case, for the 
reasons noted, EPA concluded that it was not appropriate or feasible to 
establish a standard of performance for VOC emissions from coal 
preparation and processing plants at this time. This conclusion does 
not prohibit EPA from establishing such a standard in a future 
rulemaking. EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that a 
standard could be based on oxidation of VOC in a recirculation thermal 
dryer. As noted elsewhere, EPA has concluded that there is no one 
thermal dryer design that will work in all situations found within the 
industries utilizing coal preparation and processing plants. Control of 
VOC emissions through activated carbon absorption or regenerative 
thermal oxidizers are not utilized on thermal dryers at coal 
preparation and processing plants; further, EPA did not have other 
information showing that

[[Page 51963]]

these technologies are adequately demonstrated for use on coal 
preparation and processing plant sources. VOC emissions vary, in part, 
due to the variability in volatile contents of the coals being 
processed; absent demonstrated control technology, this variability can 
not be addressed through add-on technology as it is with variable 
sulfur contents of coal. Thus, EPA believes its decision not to 
establish VOC emission limits under subpart Y at this time is 
appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed standards for coal 
drying failed to meet the basic legislative requirements of CAA section 
111. The commenter presented the following reasons to support the 
position that for EPA to comply with CAA section 111, EPA must set 
standards based on the best demonstrated technologies for drying coal 
not for the thermal drying of coal through the application of heat 
generated by coal combustion specifically for that purpose.
     CAA section 111 defines ``standard of performance'' to 
mean ``a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost 
of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated'' [42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1))].
     Another provision in CAA section 111 provides that 
standards of performance must represent the best ``technological system 
of continuous emission reduction,'' see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7411(g)(4), 
which is defined to include ``a technological process for production or 
operation by any source which is inherently low-polluting or 
nonpolluting'' [42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(7)(A)]. This provision further 
demonstrates that EPA must evaluate mechanical, indirect, and 
recirculation dryers, as each is inherently low polluting, in 
comparison to once-through coal-fired thermal dryers.
     CAA section 111 requires ``specific and rigorous limits on 
the amounts of pollutants that may be emitted.'' ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 
578 F.2d 319, 322 (DC Cir. 1978). The legislative history of this 
requirement confirms Congress's determination that ``[t]he maximum use 
of available means of preventing and controlling air pollution is 
essential to the elimination of new pollution problems * * *'' S. Rep. 
No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. at 16. In revising the standards of 
performance for coal preparation plants, EPA may not simply codify 
existing levels of performance.
     Because NSPS apply only to new, modified, or reconstructed 
sources and must reflect application of the best demonstrated system of 
reduction, they do not have to be achievable for all types of existing 
sources. See Portland Cement, 486 F.2d at 391. Nor can EPA forego 
setting limits reflecting the best demonstrated system merely because 
some sources may prefer a different system, ASARCO, 578 F.2d at 322 
(``NSPS are designed to force new sources to employ the best 
demonstrated systems of emission reduction.''). The legislative history 
of CAA section 111 demonstrates that Congress intended for EPA to 
prescribe standards that override the design preferences of regulated 
sources: ``[T]he emission standards shall provide that sources of such 
emissions shall be designed and equipped to prevent and control such 
emissions to the fullest extent compatible with the available 
technology and economic feasibility. * * * '' H.R. Rep. No. 1146, 91st 
Cong., 2d Sess. at 10 (emphasis added). Thus, EPA's assumption that 
NSPS must be set at levels lenient enough to accommodate all types of 
existing dryers is contrary to Congress' plainly expressed intent.
     CAA section 111 ``looks toward what may fairly be 
projected for the regulated future, rather than the state of the art at 
present. * * *'' Portland Cement Assn v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 
(DC Cir. 1973). An ``achievable standard is one * * * within the realm 
of the adequately demonstrated system's efficiency and which, although 
not at a level that is purely theoretical or experimental, need not 
necessarily be routinely achieved within the industry prior to its 
adoption.'' Essex Chemical Corporation v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 
433-34 (DC Cir. 1973). Instead of looking toward a future of mechanical 
dryers and indirect thermal dryers, or even gas-fired recirculation 
thermal dryers, the proposed standards attempt to lock-in standards 
that reflect the performance of coal-fired once-through thermal dryers.
     Even assuming for the sake of argument that it is 
permissible to set a standard for emissions from coal drying that 
presumes the use of thermal dryers, the proposed rule violates the 
straightforward intent of Congress. Congress purposefully chose the 
superlative ``best'' to describe the system of emissions reductions on 
which the NSPS were to be based [42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1)]. Moreover, one 
of the enumerated purposes of the NSPS was to create incentives for new 
technology. CAA Conference Report: Statement of Intent; Clarification 
of Select Provisions, 123 Cong. Rec. 27071 (1977). However, instead of 
proposing standards based on the performance of the cleanest new coal 
drying technologies, the proposal sets lax standards and then allows a 
mix of coal drying technologies to meet those standards.
    Response: EPA followed the statutory requirements of CAA section 
111 in its review of the existing standard of performance for thermal 
dryers at coal preparation and processing plants. The review was 
conducted pursuant to the requirement in section 111(b)(1)(B) that EPA 
review and revise, if appropriate, the previously promulgated standards 
of performance. Section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA, when revising the 
standards, to follow the procedure required for the promulgation of 
standards. Section 111b(1)(B) further requires publication of proposed 
regulations, an opportunity for written comment, and requires the 
Administrator to promulgate such standards as she ``deems 
appropriate.'' The commenter correctly noted that a standard of 
performance is defined as ``a standard for emissions of air pollutants 
which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 
application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into 
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality 
health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the 
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' 42 U.S.C. 
7411(a)(1). The commenter, however, takes the language from 42 U.S.C. 
7411(g)(4) out of context. CAA section 111(g)(4) provides that the 
Administrator shall revise a standard of performance upon application 
of the Governor of a State that meets certain criteria. The language 
quoted by the commenter appears in this section and describes what must 
be included in the application of the Governor, and does not modify the 
definition of a standard of performance in section 111(a)(1).
    To determine the appropriate level for a particular standard of 
performance, EPA conducts an analysis to determine what emission rates 
reflect application of ``best demonstrated technology'' or BDT. This 
BDT analysis includes consideration of available emission controls and 
technologies. In the BDT analysis for controlling PM emissions from 
coal dryers for this final rule, EPA explicitly considered alternate 
processes for drying coal as well as add-on emission control 
technologies. For modified facilities, EPA recognized the limitations 
that may be associated with

[[Page 51964]]

the physical layout of existing dryers. For reconstructed facilities 
and new facilities, however, we concluded that design options, and 
alternative replacement technologies, could be taken into account 
during the reconstruction or construction process. EPA concluded that 
recirculation thermal dryers and indirect thermal dryers are both 
adequately demonstrated and readily available technologies for drying 
coal. It did not restrict its analysis, or the definition of affected 
facility, to the once-through direct contact thermal dryers covered by 
the existing NSPS standards for thermal dryers. Contrary to the 
commenter's assertions, EPA neither presumed the use of existing once-
through direct contact thermal dryers nor merely codified existing 
levels of performance achieved by such dryers. Instead, EPA concluded 
that BDT for controlling PM emissions for new and reconstructed thermal 
dryers is fabric filters applied to recirculation thermal dryers and 
indirect thermal dryers. The PM standards in the final rule are based 
on these conclusions.
    Although mechanical coal drying technologies, because they do not 
burn fuel, may inherently produce lower air pollutant emissions 
compared to some thermal drying technologies, they may not be 
technically applicable, cost-effective, or the most energy efficient 
for all possible coal drying applications that could be subject to 
subpart Y. EPA does not, at this time, have data to support a 
conclusion that standards based on an assumption that mechanical dryers 
are BDT would be achievable by the industry as a whole (see National 
Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 (1980)). Even though the 
``adequately demonstrated'' requirement does not ``necessarily impl[y] 
that any [covered facility] now in existence be able to meet the 
proposed standards,'' Portland Cement, 486 F.2d at 391, EPA must 
demonstrate that the standard is, in fact, achievable taking into 
consideration variables that may affect emissions in different 
circumstances and at different plants. National Lime, 627 F.2d at 433. 
In fact, the type of coal drying technology used at a given facility is 
influenced by a variety of factors, including type of facility, coal 
moisture reduction requirements, availability of waste heat sources at 
the coal processing location, and drying process energy requirements 
including electrical power consumption. Mechanical drying techniques 
are not suitable replacements for thermal dryers under all 
circumstances. Mechanical drying techniques can remove free moisture 
adsorbed onto the surface of the coal particles, as well as a portion 
of the hydroscopic moisture contained by capillary action within 
microfractures in the coal particles, but are ineffective at removing 
inherent moisture (and, thus, would only be applicable at preparation 
plants utilizing coal washing). Some type of thermal energy is required 
to remove the interstitial and molecular (inherent) moisture from the 
coal for applications where extremely low moisture content is 
desirable. Therefore, mechanical drying techniques are not suitable 
replacements for thermal dryers under all circumstances, and because 
waste heat is not available at all locations, thermal dryers using 
waste heat are not a technically possible substitute for thermal dryers 
in all situations. EPA will continue to follow the development of 
mechanical drying techniques. To the extent the commenter is suggesting 
that EPA should require use of a certain technology for drying coal and 
coal preparation plants, EPA notes that CAA section 111(h), 42 U.S.C. 
7411(h)(1) only allows the Administrator to promulgate design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards if ``in the judgment 
of the Administrator, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 
standard of performance.'' No such finding has been made here.
    In the BDT analysis for controlling SO2 emissions from 
coal dryers for the final rule, EPA determined that BDT for modified 
and reconstructed thermal dryers is a wet scrubber with a scrubbing 
reagent (e.g., an upgraded venturi scrubber with sodium hydroxide or 
packed bed scrubber with lime). The information that EPA has indicates 
that all of the once-through direct contact thermal dryers currently 
use venturi scrubbers for PM control. Thus, the upgraded venturi 
scrubber with sodium hydroxide or the packed bed scrubber with lime 
(would be in addition to the venturi scrubber) would provide 
SO2 control, along with additional PM control necessary for 
reconstructed thermal dryers to meet their PM and opacity limits. For 
new thermal dryers, we determined that BDT for controlling 
SO2 emissions is the injection of sodium hydroxide directly 
to the venturi scrubber fluid or injection of a sodium-based sorbent 
into the combustion gases prior to the drying chamber. For a new once-
through direct contact thermal dryer, the caustic injection into the 
scrubber fluid for SO2 control would be in addition to a 
high-energy venturi scrubber which is the likely control technology 
that would be used for PM and opacity control. For a new coal 
recirculation thermal dryer, sorbent injection into the combustion 
gases for SO2 control would be used in conjunction with a 
fabric filter which is the likely control technology that would be used 
for PM and opacity control. EPA determined that BDT for controlling 
NOX emissions from new, reconstructed, and modified thermal 
dryers is combustion controls. Combustion controls can be used across 
the range of thermal dryers currently in use. Combustion controls 
include low NOX burners, staged combustion, co-firing with 
natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas, and flue gas recirculation. BDT 
for controlling CO emissions was determined to be good combustion 
practices. Good combustion practices limit the formation of CO (and 
VOC) by providing sufficient oxygen in the combustion zone such that 
complete combustion can occur. Maintaining appropriate combustion zone 
temperature and gas residence time also are good combustion practices, 
as is proper operation and maintenance of the dryer.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed PM emission 
limit of 0.010gr/dscf for new coal dryers does not reflect an adequate 
margin of compliance to the fabric filter test data used and that the 
proposed limit needs to be less stringent because the test data do not 
represent a demonstration of the performance of control technology over 
the life of the facility and over the range of operating conditions 
that may be encountered at thermal dryers. Therefore, the commenters 
recommended that the PM emission limit remain at the current NSPS 
emission rate of 0.031 gr/dscf. Other commenters presented an opposing 
argument that the proposed PM limit needs to be lower. The commenters 
asserted that the compliance margin of two to three times applied by 
EPA to fabric filter test data is unjustified in that EPA has not 
explained why use of a fabric filter to control PM emissions would 
require such a large margin of safety, given the demonstrated 
performance of fabric filters for the subject source as well as similar 
sources in numerous other industries.
    Response: EPA has reviewed the available PM emissions and permit 
data for thermal dryers; no additional PM data were provided during the 
public comment period. We believe that the proposed PM limit of 0.023 
g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) for new thermal dryers is appropriate. We 
further believe that, in the presence of limited data showing actual 
emissions, permit information can be useful in determining whether a 
particular emission limit is achievable

[[Page 51965]]

by sources in the source category. EPA has available three emission 
test data points for fabric filters installed on thermal dryers, 
including two tests one year apart at one facility. We believe that 
these three data points provide adequate information on the performance 
of the technology. However, EPA also has examined the permit data which 
identifies emission limits agreed upon between State regulators and the 
regulated community and believe that the emission limits contained in 
permits constitute limits that could be achieved over the range of 
operating conditions to be found within the industry. Nat'l. Lime 
Ass'n. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 (DC Cir. 1980) requires EPA to show 
that the limit selected is achievable under different conditions at an 
individual plant and conditions at different plants. EPA believes that 
basing the emission limit on use of the data points from two 
facilities, including two data sets from one facility, in conjunction 
with the permit data, adequately accounts for the variability to be 
found within the industry. Therefore, the final rule reflects no 
changes to the proposed PM emission limit for new thermal dryers.
    Comment: Two commenters supported the proposal to revise the PM 
limit for units reconstructed after April 28, 2008, to 0.045 g/dscm 
(0.020 gr/dscf) and to maintain the existing 1976 rule's opacity limit 
of less than 20 percent. In contrast, a third commenter disagreed with 
the proposed PM standard for reconstructed dryers, which is twice as 
high as the proposed standard for new dryers (0.010 gr/dscf). The 
commenter stated that EPA must either require reconstructed dryers to 
meet the same PM standards as new dryers, or explain why such limits do 
not reflect BDT for reconstructed dryers. The commenter further stated 
that EPA has not explained why it would not also be feasible to further 
modify existing dryers, at the time of reconstruction, by converting 
them to recirculation dryers or by otherwise modifying them to use 
fabric filters, and that EPA must examine whether a fabric filter is a 
feasible option for control of PM emissions from reconstructed dryers. 
Another commenter recommended that the PM emission limitations not be 
changed from the current NSPS emission rate of 0.031 gr/dscf. The 
commenter believes that the limited data EPA has cited to justify 
reducing the limit by a third for reconstructed dryers using the same 
control technology is insufficient to conclude that thermal dryers with 
the specified control equipment would, throughout the life of the 
facility, be able to continuously meet a lower emission limit than the 
current NSPS provide.
    Response: EPA agrees that units undergoing reconstruction as 
defined in the CAA could undergo the conversions necessary to install 
BDT for PM emissions control for new thermal dryers and, thus, meet the 
PM and opacity limits of new facilities. Thus, the regulation has been 
changed accordingly.
    Comment: One commenter stated that information in the supplemental 
proposal preamble and support documentation show that the 
SO2 emissions limits for new and reconstructed coal dryers 
should be set lower than the proposed level. The commenter explained 
that the proposal preamble states that ``[w]et scrubbers designed 
specifically for SO2 control are able to achieve greater 
than 95 percent reduction.'' EPA, however, dismisses wet scrubbers from 
further consideration, as the wet scrubbers currently used on existing 
thermal dryers are designed for PM control and not specifically for 
SO2 controls, and high levels of SO2 control may 
be difficult to achieve without redesign of the wet scrubber. The 
commenter asserted that this is not a valid reason for eliminating a 
viable technology from consideration, and that wet scrubbers are widely 
used on similar sources and, as EPA recognizes, routinely achieve 
greater than 95 percent reduction. Even if EPA ultimately determines 
that wet scrubbers are not BDT for SO2 control for some coal 
dryers, the commenter stated that the subpart Y SO2 emission 
limit must be more stringent for those dryers. The commenter cited as 
support EPA's assertion that sorbent injection controls that use 
sodium-based agents can meet removal efficiencies of 90 percent.
    Response: EPA indicated in the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal 
that it was considering an SO2 percent reduction requirement 
of between 50 and 90 percent for the final rule (74 FR 25311). EPA has 
reviewed the available data and believes that a 90 percent removal 
requirement is appropriate for new, reconstructed, and modified thermal 
dryers. Affected facilities that meet the alternative SO2 
emissions limit of 85 ng/J (0.20 lb/MMBtu) heat input are not required 
to meet this requirement.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that EPA's proposal to set a 
combined NOX and CO emissions limit for coal dryers is 
inappropriate. Another commenter stated explicitly that separate 
NOX and CO emissions limits must be set for coal dryers. 
Reasons cited by individual commenters include the following.
     A combined NOX/CO limit enables permitting 
authorities to trade off higher NOX emissions for lower CO 
emissions, and vice versa. EPA's proposed approach of allowing States 
to trade NOX and CO emissions at essentially a 1:1 ratio 
ignores that CO and NOX are different pollutants that do not 
have equivalent environmental impacts.
     A combined NOX/CO limit violates CAA for the 
reason that the proposed combined limit is based on an assumed CO 
emissions rate that does not reflect application of the best system of 
emission reduction. EPA admits that the presumed levels of CO emissions 
(0.45 lb/MMBtu for modified and reconstructed dryers and 0.25 lb/MMBtu 
for new dryers) are levels that are already surpassed by nearly all 
existing industrial boilers and has not explained why industrial 
boilers would be capable of meeting more stringent CO limits than 
thermal dryers.
     Test data provided in the docket indicates a wide 
variation in test results, especially for CO. Test data is almost 
exclusively based on bituminous coal drying operations, and these data 
do not support the conclusion that the proposed combined 
NOX/CO limit is applicable across all grades of coal.
     Combustion controls currently represent BDT in use by the 
source category. Going beyond the demonstrated technologies for the 
source category (e.g., incorporating post combustion control 
technologies, specifically selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) on 
new thermal dyers) is not required in developing NSPS.
     EPA does not have sufficient data to support the proposed 
NOX standards, and EPA has not demonstrated that thermal 
dryers with different design and function can meet the same limitations 
as coal-fired boilers. Also, EPA has identified combustion controls 
that may not be available as the basis for the proposed NOX 
standards, especially for existing thermal dryers.
    Response: EPA believes that the use of a combined NOX/CO 
limit is appropriate because it acknowledges the inherent trade-off 
between the two pollutants (i.e., a decrease in emissions of one often 
leads to an increase in emissions of the other). EPA has based the 
combined NOX/CO limit on what it believes to be adequate 
data from thermal dryers at subpart Y facilities; thus, the comparison 
to industrial boilers is misplaced. In addition, as the Court has 
noted, ``[t]he `adequately demonstrated' requirement does not imply 
that any [covered facility] now in

[[Page 51966]]

existence be able to meet the proposed standards. CAA section 111 looks 
toward what may be fairly be projected for the regulated future, rather 
than the state of the art at present.'' Portland Cement Ass'n v. 
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (DC Cir. 1973).

E. Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage Systems, 
Transfer and Loading Systems, and Open Storage Piles Standards

    Comment: Many commenters acknowledged EPA's decision in the 
supplemental proposal to add fogging systems and passive enclosure 
containment systems (PECS) to its list of BDT for coal processing and 
conveying equipment, but stated that EPA's BDT determination still 
failed to meet the requirements of CAA Sec.  111. Additional commenters 
also disagreed with EPA's finding of chemical suppression to be BDT for 
coal handling equipment processing bituminous coal, stating that EPA's 
current BDT approach of focusing only on emission control systems with 
the highest control efficiency is an inappropriate, unjustified 
departure from its prior technology assessments for coal preparation 
plants. Commenters stated that EPA's evaluation of technologies for 
control of fugitive emissions from coal-handling should have included 
wet suppression. Further, commenters asserted that EPA must explain why 
it has either rejected or ignored Peabody Energy's compelling 
comparison of wet suppression costs and chemical suppression costs. The 
commenters believe that the record demonstrates that cost 
considerations favor the use of wet suppression instead of chemical 
suppression for controlling fugitive emissions from preparation 
facilities at coal mines.
    Response: As pointed out by the commenters, EPA has added fogging 
systems and PECS as technologies representative of BDT for coal-
handling equipment processing subbituminous and lignite coals (fabric 
filters and wet extraction scrubbers also are considered representative 
of BDT). As noted in the supporting documentation (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0260-0083, pp. 1-2), EPA has reviewed our determination of chemical 
suppressants as BDT for coal-handling equipment processing bituminous 
coal. However, as also noted in the support document, an owner/operator 
may use any combination of controls at a particular site as long as the 
requirements of subpart Y are met. With respect to Peabody Energy's 
comparison of wet suppression and chemical suppression costs, their 
estimates indicate that the incremental cost of chemical suppression as 
compared to wet suppression is $4,400 per ton of PM removed.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that the data used by EPA does not 
demonstrate the continuous achievability of the proposed opacity limit 
of 5 percent. Commenters further stated that the promulgation of NSPS 
based upon inadequate proof of achievability would defy the 
Administrative Procedure Act's mandate against action that is 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 
accordance with the law. National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 430 
(DC Cir. 1980).
    Response: In the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal, EPA requested 
comment on whether an opacity limit of less than 10 percent is more 
appropriate than the proposed limit of 5 percent. We also requested 
comment on whether the 5 percent limit is achievable on a long-term 
basis for all subpart Y coal-handling facilities under all operating 
conditions and whether the limit provides an adequate compliance 
margin. As we pointed out in supporting documentation (see EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0260-0083, pp. 3-4), the data used to establish the supplemental 
proposal's 5 percent opacity level were primarily from initial 
compliance tests, and the reported highest 6-minute average opacity 
reading was 5 percent for a recently installed facility. Data for coal 
handling facilities submitted by commenters in response to the 
supplemental proposal indicate that 60 percent of the highest 6-minute 
average opacity readings are less than 10 percent. Upon reconsideration 
of EPA's data and consideration of the public comments and supporting 
data, EPA has determined that an opacity limit of less than 10 percent 
is more appropriate for all coal-handling equipment. An opacity limit 
of 10 percent will allow for control equipment degradation, adverse 
conditions, and variability that would not be reflected in initial 
compliance tests. Thus, the final rule requires coal handling 
facilities to maintain opacity levels of less than 10 percent.
    Comment: Many commenters requested that subpart Y provide the same 
compliance alternative for affected sources located in enclosed 
buildings as that provided in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO. Under 
subpart OOO, performance standards and applicable monitoring techniques 
for the exhaust systems of these buildings have been specified as an 
appropriate alternative to individual compliance by each affected 
facility enclosed within the building. Commenters explained that 
building enclosure of certain coal handling and processing operations 
at coal preparation plants has become more commonplace throughout the 
industry for several reasons, including the ability to effectively 
control emissions and to protect personnel and equipment from the 
elements. These commenters urged EPA to extend this practical and 
achievable alternative to subpart Y and recognize within the rule the 
beneficial control technique of enclosing coal preparation facilities 
within buildings.
    Response: EPA has determined that if a building in which affected 
coal processing and conveying equipment (e.g., breakers, crushers, 
screens, conveying systems), coal storage systems, and coal transfer 
system operations are enclosed is found to be in compliance with the 
subpart Y limits applicable to the affected facilities enclosed in the 
building, then the affected facilities enclosed in that building also 
are in compliance. Because exhaust from a building that encloses 
affected facilities would be comprised of exhaust from the affected 
facilities, it follows that in order for the building to be able to 
meet a specific PM or opacity limit, each facility enclosed in the 
building also would have to meet that same PM or opacity limit. If the 
affected facilities enclosed in the building are subject to different 
emission limits, the affected facilities are deemed in compliance only 
if the building is in compliance with the most stringent of the limits 
applicable to the enclosed affected facilities.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that EPA does not have the 
authority to regulate coal storage piles under 40 CFR part 60. Section 
60.1 provides that the provisions of 40 CFR part 60 ``apply to the 
owner or operator of any stationary source which contains an affected 
facility * * * '' Stationary source is defined in section 60.2, 
consistent with 42 U.S.C. 7411, as including any building, structure, 
facility or installation. Commenters asserted that although it is not 
clear that a coal pile constitutes a building, structure, facility or 
installation, if it does, under section 60.1 the stationary source must 
also contain an affected facility. Further, affected facility is 
defined in section 60.2 as ``with reference to a stationary source, any 
apparatus to which a standard is applicable.'' According to commenters, 
this latter definition presents a substantial problem in that if EPA 
wishes to regulate coal storage piles under 40 CFR part 60 as part of a 
stationary source, the coal storage piles must be an apparatus. At many 
facilities which manage coal, commenters explained that coal storage 
piles are nothing more than what the name

[[Page 51967]]

suggests: piles of coal, and these piles often have no walls, no floor 
surfaces, and no equipment associated with their use. Although the term 
``apparatus'' is an undefined term under 40 CFR part 60, commenters do 
not believe that a pile of minerals mined from the earth and stored on 
the earth constitutes an ``apparatus'' which subjects the pile to 
regulation under 40 CFR part 60. Further, although the authority may 
not exist to regulate coal storage piles under 40 CFR 60, commenters 
contend that this would not leave such storage piles unregulated. In 
many States, fugitive emissions from coal piles are regulated under 
State fugitive emissions limitations which are often incorporated into 
State implementation plans, and the commenters do not challenge those 
regulations.
    Response: EPA disagrees with commenters' assertion that a coal pile 
cannot be an affected facility under 40 CFR 60. Commenters correctly 
noted that the term ``affected facility'' is defined in section 60.2 to 
mean ``with reference to a stationary source, any apparatus to which a 
standard is applicable.'' The commenters also correctly note that the 
term ``apparatus'' is undefined in 40 CFR part 60, and an agency's 
interpretation of its own regulation is granted substantial deference 
(see, e.g., Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 1997).
    The commenters do not offer a definition of ``apparatus'' but 
appear to suggest that to be an ``apparatus'' a coal pile would need to 
have ``walls, floor surfaces, or equipment associated with their use.'' 
The commenters, however, offer no support for this assertion, and EPA 
does not believe such a limited definition of ``apparatus'' would be 
reasonable or consistent with the plain English meaning of the word. 
Further, the Courts stated ``In designating what will constitute a 
facility in each particular industrial context, EPA is guided by a 
reasoned application of the terms of the statute it is charged to 
enforce.'' ASARCO Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 324 n.17 (1978). In this 
case, because coal storage piles are significant sources of emissions 
and are physically located at coal preparation and processing plants, 
EPA believes it is reasonable in this context, to determine that they 
are facilities that can be subject to regulation.
    The dictionary definition of the word ``apparatus'' also supports 
EPA's approach. The word ``apparatus'' has a very broad meaning and can 
include tangible items such as equipment, tools and materials as well 
as intangible items such as activities and functions. The Random House 
College Dictionary: Revised Edition defines the word ``apparatus'' as 
follows:

    1. A group or aggregate of instruments, machinery, tools, 
materials, etc. intended for a specific use. 2. any complex 
instrument or machine for a particular purpose. 3. any system of 
activities, functions etc. directed toward a specific goal: the 
apparatus of government. 4. a group of structurally different organs 
performing a particular function.

Because a coal pile constitutes ``a group or aggregate of * * * 
materials * * * intended for a specific use,'' it qualifies as an 
``apparatus'' under the first definition of the word. Furthermore, 
given the broad meaning of the term ``apparatus,'' EPA believes it 
would not be reasonable to interpret this term to limit the scope of 
the definition of ``affected facility'' to exclude a significant part 
of the coal preparation and processing plant that may have significant 
emissions.
    In addition, although commenters do not actually argue that a coal 
pile does not constitute a stationary source because it is not a 
building, structure, facility, or installation, EPA notes that there 
can be no doubt that a pile of coal does in fact qualify as a 
stationary source as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. 7411 and section 
60.2. Stationary source is defined in 42 U.S.C. 7411 as including ``any 
building, structure, facility or installation which emits or may emit 
any air pollutant.'' This same definition appears in section 60.2. The 
terms building, structure, facility, or installation, are not defined 
although section 60.2 does contain definitions for ``affected 
facility'' and ``existing facility.'' In some instances, the regulated 
affected facility may be a portion or a part of a stationary source, 
but not the entire source. In other circumstances, however, a 
stationary source may also be an affected facility. Because, as noted 
above a coal pile can be an affected facility it necessarily also can 
be a facility within the definition of stationary source. In addition, 
the terms installation and structure are very broad and not limited to 
things that have walls, floor surfaces or dedicated equipment. For 
these reasons, commenter's assertion that coal piles cannot be 
regulated under 40 CFR part 60 is without support.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that coal piles should not be 
regulated under subpart Y because of the diverse conditions affecting 
emissions from coal storage piles that could be encountered at each 
coal preparation plant site. Among the site-specific factors for open 
coal storage piles that will vary widely from site to site are the 
following: ambient temperature, precipitation, meteorology, wind speed, 
and geography. In addition, commenters stated that fugitive emissions 
will depend on coal properties and coal rank. Therefore, a uniform NSPS 
is not appropriate for coal piles and fugitive coal dust emissions from 
coal piles should be addressed by case-by-case determinations in 
individual permit proceedings.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenters that coal piles 
should not be regulated under subpart Y. Such sources were apparently 
included in the October 1974 proposed rule (i.e., there was no specific 
exclusion). A comment was received indicating that no fugitive dust 
control options were available for open storage piles other than water 
sprays and that these were not effective on windy days. EPA 
subsequently excluded open storage piles from regulation in the final 
rule (January 1976). However, EPA has now identified additional control 
measures, beyond simple water sprays, that may be utilized on coal 
piles and that address the concerns noted by commenters. EPA is 
establishing work practice standards instead of standards of 
performance for coal piles. Owners/operators are required to develop a 
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan to control emissions from the 
coal piles, and the plan requirements established by EPA provide 
adequate flexibility for an owner/operator to tailor their plan to 
address site-specific factors.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that it is not feasible to 
establish emission standards for open storage piles or roadways, and if 
open storage piles are to be regulated by subpart Y then the only 
appropriate method for controlling PM emissions from such sources is by 
using work practice standards. Another commenter does not support 
establishing an opacity limit for open storage piles or roadways and 
concurred with the proposal to establish work practice standards 
instead of opacity or PM limits. If an opacity limit is established for 
storage piles, the commenter stated that it should be limited to 
stationary open storage piles not including piles of coal that have 
been loaded into trucks, railcars, and/or ships. An additional 
commenter disagreed that only work practices are suitable for 
controlling PM emissions open storage piles (and roadways). The 
commenter indicated that a 20 percent opacity limitation under subpart 
Y has been an existing applicable requirement for fugitive dust sources 
in the coal-handling system for decades, and it has not been proven 
infeasible to conduct opacity monitoring over all of those years.

[[Page 51968]]

    Response: As explained in a later response, EPA is not finalizing 
its proposed requirements for roadways. EPA concurs that, at this time, 
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance 
for open storage coal piles and has therefore promulgated work practice 
standards, which EPA believes provide the most effective method of 
limiting emissions from open storage piles. In addition, EPA believes 
that the size of open storage coal piles currently makes the use of 
Method 9 opacity observations unreasonable in many situations.
    Comment: Many commenters stated concerns about the inherent 
difficulties in determining when an open storage pile is 
``reconstructed'' or ``modified.'' Commenters contend that there is 
simply no way that an ``increase in the emission rate'' of PM or any 
other pollutant could be measured with any certainty for an open coal 
storage pile. Unlike other ``affected facilities'' or plant equipment, 
commenters explained that open storage piles by their nature fluctuate 
in size and activity. As the subpart Y amendments were proposed, any 
time large coal inventory was added to an open storage pile and then 
reclaimed, subpart Y potentially could be triggered. Commenters stated 
that if EPA proceeds with the establishment of work practices for coal 
piles, EPA should provide clarification and guidance as to what 
constitutes a physical or operational change for an open storage pile 
through a subsequent rulemaking proposal that would allow public review 
and comment. Commenters requested that EPA limit the applicability of 
the subpart Y control requirements for coal storage piles to only new 
sources.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that open storage piles 
are always changing (i.e., coal is being added and coal is being 
removed for processing) and, for purposes of subpart Y, we do not 
consider the routine addition and removal of coal to be a physical 
change or a change in the method of operation. A change to an open 
storage pile that requires the source's operating permit be opened for 
revision may be a modification or reconstruction of the storage pile. 
Instances where a physical change or change in the method of operation 
of an open storage pile will result in an increase in emissions would 
be considered a modification or reconstruction (e.g., increasing the 
permitted size of the storage pile). Changes to the equipment used in 
loading, unloading, and conveying operations of open storage piles are 
among the things that can be assessed in order to determine when an 
open storage pile has been reconstructed or modified. Thus, in the 
final rule, EPA defines ``open storage pile'' to mean ``any facility, 
including storage area, that is not enclosed that is used to store 
coal, including the equipment used in the loading, unloading, and 
conveying operations of the facility.'' The inclusion of a definition 
for ``open storage pile'' should provide additional clarification as 
requested by the commenters. In addition, 40 CFR 60.5 provides that 
when requested to do so by an owner or operator, the Administrator will 
make a determination of whether action taken or intended to be taken by 
such owner or operator constitutes construction (including 
reconstruction) or modification or the commencement thereof within the 
meaning of this part.
    Comment: Several commenters agreed that piles of coal that have 
been loaded into trucks, railcars, and/or ships should not be subject 
to the subpart Y control requirements for open storage piles. In 
contrast, several other commenters disagreed with EPA's stated 
rationale for proposing the exclusion. Specifically, commenters 
provided the following reasons: (1) EPA has not identified any 
information or data to support its statement that fugitive dust 
emissions from these sources are not significant; (2) it is not 
economically infeasible to require covering the coal or chemical 
encrustation on loaded trucks, railcars, and ships because operators 
may choose to use these controls to comply with State and local 
regulations or the desire to minimize the loss of coal while in 
transit; and (3) EPA did not consider the use of alternate work 
practice standards already identified as appropriate for open piles, 
including the use of wet suppression. Commenters further stated that 
EPA should recognize that the owners/operators of coal preparation 
plants, as the ones who determine the placement of coal into trucks, 
railcars, and ships, and as the ones who initiate the use of any 
appropriate controls, are uniquely situated to take the steps most 
effective at reducing or limiting fugitive dust emissions from these 
sources once they leave the facility. Although some of the emissions 
from piles loaded into trucks, railcars, and ships may occur beyond the 
boundaries of the coal preparation plant, commenters stated that the 
extent of these emissions depends on actions taken at the coal 
preparation plant.
    Response: EPA is not addressing at this time emissions from the 
sources noted by the commenters because we found any such regulation to 
be impractical to enforce (particularly with regard to interstate 
shipments). Further, based on available data emissions from these 
sources while at the coal preparation and processing plant have not 
been shown to be significant and, at this time, EPA has no data on 
emissions from such sources while enroute.
    Comment: Many commenters requested clarification regarding the 
plant roadways to which EPA intends subpart Y to apply. Commenters 
stated that EPA should clarify that ``roadways'' such as haul roads 
that do not leave the plant property are not subject to subpart Y. 
Commenters also stated that EPA needs to clearly define where the coal 
preparation plant begins and where the coal mine ends, and that subpart 
Y is applicable only to affected facilities of a coal preparation 
plant. Other commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to exclude 
roadways that do not leave the property (e.g., haul roads at coal 
mines) from being subject to subpart Y.
    Response: As previously noted, EPA has decided not to finalize the 
work practice standards that were proposed for roadways. Emissions 
associated with roadways at both the ``active mining area'' and the 
``coal preparation plant'' are also be subject to regulation under 
SMCRA. Under the definition of ``surface coal mining operations'' 
contained in 30 CFR 70.5 (SMCRA), operations conducted within a coal 
preparation plant are covered under SMCRA:

    (a) Activities conducted on the surface of lands in connection 
with a surface coal mine * * * the products of which enter commerce 
or the operations of which directly or indirectly affect interstate 
commerce. Such activities include * * * the cleaning, concentrating, 
or other processing or preparation of coal. Such activities also 
include the loading of coal for interstate commerce at or near the 
mine site (emphasis added).

Such operations also include roads (under 30 CFR 701.5). 30 CFR 780.15 
requires the following:

    (a) For all surface mining activities with projected production 
rates exceeding 1,000,000 tons of coal per year and located west of 
the 100th meridian west longitude, the application shall contain an 
air pollution control plan which includes the following:
    (1) An air quality monitoring program to provide sufficient data 
to evaluate the effectiveness of the fugitive dust control practices 
proposed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section to comply with 
Federal and State air quality standards; and
    (2) A plan for fugitive dust control practices as required under 
30 CFR 816.95.
    (b) For all other surface mining activities the application 
shall contain an air pollution control plan which includes the 
following:
    (1) An air quality monitoring program, if required by the 
regulatory authority, to

[[Page 51969]]

provide sufficient data to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
fugitive dust control practices under paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section to comply with applicable Federal and State air quality 
standards; and
    (2) A plan for fugitive dust control practices, as required 
under 30 CFR 816.95.

    30 CFR 816.95(a) specifies:

    All exposed surface areas shall be protected and stabilized to 
effectively control erosion and air pollution attendant to erosion.

    30 CFR 816.150 provides some additional requirements:

    (b) Performance standards. Each road shall be located, designed, 
constructed, reconstructed, used, maintained, and reclaimed so as 
to:
    (1) Control or prevent erosion, siltation, and the air pollution 
attendant to erosion, including road dust as well as dust occurring 
on other exposed surfaces, by measures such as vegetating, watering, 
using chemical or other dust suppressants, or otherwise stabilizing 
all exposed surfaces in accordance with current, prudent engineering 
practices * * *
    (e) Maintenance. (1) A road shall be maintained to meet the 
performance standards of this part and any additional criteria 
specified by the regulatory authority.

Thus, SMCRA covers fugitive dust emissions from roads at coal 
preparation and processing plants at mine sites and requires a fugitive 
dust plan and other requirements to control air pollution from such 
sources (through similar measures as were included in the supplemental 
proposal for subpart Y). EPA believes that coal moving operations, once 
the coal enters the ``coal preparation plant,'' will be by conveyor 
rather than by truck. Therefore, EPA believes that the requirements of 
SMCRA are sufficient to address air emissions from roadways that may be 
found within a coal preparation and processing plant at mine sites. For 
coal preparation plants at end-user facilities, EPA believes that, 
again, once the coal enters the ``coal preparation plant,'' coal moving 
operations will be by conveyor rather than by truck. Therefore, EPA has 
decided not to finalize the proposed requirements for roadways.
    Where fugitive coal dust emissions control plan requirements under 
subpart Y for open storage piles overlap requirements under SMCRA or 
State regulations, those sources may submit the more stringent of the 
required monitoring plans to the Administrator or delegated authority 
as required by 40 CFR 60.254(c).
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA delete the proposed 
fugitive emission control plan requirements from the final subpart Y 
amendments for the following reasons: (1) regulated entities have the 
right to know exactly what requirements apply to their facilities, 
particularly those applicable to new sources, and the proposed language 
does not provide any objective basis for determining what might have to 
be included or how to comply; (2) making fugitive emission control plan 
requirements subject to negotiation and air regulatory agency approval 
adds potentially significant delays in getting new sources approved and 
into operation; (3) fugitive emission control plans to minimize 
emissions from coal piles and roadways are commonly embodied in State 
implementation plans and existing air permits for iron and steel plants 
and coke plants; and (4) subpart Y should not duplicate and should not 
conflict with existing fugitive emission control requirements that have 
been in place for many years in the title V operating permits.
    Many commenters stated that EPA has failed to properly develop 
revisions to subpart Y in accordance with established procedures for 
developing NSPS that specifically designate each type of affected 
facility subject to proposed standards. The commenters contend that 
this failure to designate each type of facility appears to be an open-
ended and indeterminate expansion of subpart Y. According to 
commenters, this intent is further reflected in preamble language 
indicating that proposed procedures for developing a ``fugitive dust 
plan'' must include procedures for limiting emissions from ``all 
types'' of coal processing and conveying equipment at coal preparation 
plants (74 FR 25312). The commenters stated that it is unclear what EPA 
means by ``all types'' of equipment when ``coal processing and 
conveying equipment'' has a well-settled meaning within subpart Y. 
Further, the commenters noted that the proposed rule amendments do not, 
but should, make clear that an owner/operator can choose from the 
methods stated in the rule or an alternative method, if one exists, 
approved by the permitting authority. As currently proposed, any 
alternative methods would have to be approved by the Administrator, and 
the commenters consider such a requirement to be unduly burdensome. 
Commenters contend that the regulation should acknowledge that fugitive 
emissions control measures might not be available when temperatures are 
below freezing, and that prevailing weather conditions may reduce the 
effectiveness of, or eliminate the need for, a particular control 
method on a given day.
    Response: EPA disagrees that fugitive coal dust emission control 
plans should not be required by the NSPS. The commenter states that 
such plans are ``commonly'' embodied in State implementation plans but 
does not suggest that they are contained within all such plans. Adding 
to the NSPS a requirement that sources must control fugitive coal dust 
emissions from fugitive sources at the facility by operating according 
to a written fugitive coal dust emissions control establishes a uniform 
requirement that applies to all sources in the subpart Y source 
category. The final rule also provides very specific requirements 
regarding the control measures that must be included in the fugitive 
coal dust emissions control plans. The fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan must identify and describe the control measures the owner/
operator will use to minimize fugitive coal dust emissions from each 
affected facility addressed in the plan. The owner or operator is also 
required to explain how the measures are applicable and appropriate for 
the site conditions. The owner/operator may petition the Administrator 
requesting approval of a control measure other than those specified in 
the final rule. The petition must either demonstrate that the alternate 
control measure will provide equivalent overall environmental 
protection or demonstrate that it is either economically or technically 
infeasible for the affected facility to use the control measures 
specifically identified in the final rule. The final rule clarifies 
that the owner/operator must submit a fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan that includes the alternative measures along with the 
petition and operate in accordance with that plan while the petition is 
pending. It further clarifies that while operating in accordance with 
the plan that includes the alternative control measures, the affected 
facility is considered to be in compliance with the fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan requirements while the petition is pending.
    EPA has decided to omit, from the rule, the proposed requirement 
that the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan address ``other 
site-specific sources of fugitive emissions that the Administrator or 
permitting authority determines need to be included.'' EPA agrees with 
the commenters that subpart Y should specifically identify each type of 
affected facility that must be addressed in fugitive dust emissions 
control plan. As explained earlier in this preamble, EPA also has 
decided not to address roadways under subpart Y at

[[Page 51970]]

this time. Thus, open storage coal piles are currently the only 
affected facilities that must be addressed by the plan. As pointed out 
by the commenters, an owner/operator must either use one of the control 
measures specifically identified in subpart Y or, alternatively, seek 
approval from the Administrator to use an alternate control measure. 
Because the NSPS is a Federal standard, we believe it is appropriate 
for the Administrator to be the one who makes determinations regarding 
whether an alternative control measure achieves equivalent overall 
environmental protection. Weather-related issues such as those noted by 
the commenter should be addressed in the fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan prepared by the owner/operator.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed requirements that 
the permitting authority approve the site-specific fugitive dust would 
be unnecessary. The better and less burdensome approach is to require 
owners or operators to submit their fugitive dust controls plans to the 
permitting authority, and those plans would automatically take effect 
unless the permitting authority objects to the terms of the plan. 
Another commenter stated that the proposed requirements do not specify 
which permitting authority will be required to approve fugitive dust 
emissions plans under the proposed regulation. It is entirely unclear, 
for instance, whether fugitive dust emissions plans will be required to 
be incorporated into a coal preparation plant's title V permit. EPA 
must clarify these requirements for the preparation and approval of the 
fugitive dust emissions control plans. At a minimum, the commenter 
stated that EPA must require that these fugitive dust emission control 
plans be subject to public notice and comment, whether or not they are 
incorporated into a plant's title V permit.
    Response: The requirement to control fugitive coal dust emissions 
by operating according to a written fugitive dust emissions control 
plan is a Federal requirement and is Federally enforceable. The final 
rule does not require approval of the plans by the Administrator or 
delegated authority. In addition, the commenter does not identify any 
provision of CAA section 111 that would require the NSPS itself to 
establish a notice and comment process for the plans. However, this 
rule does require the owner/operator to submit the fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan to the Administrator or delegated authority to 
provide an opportunity for the Administrator or delegated authority to 
object to the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan. The final rule 
requires the owner/operator to submit the fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan to the Administrator or delegated authority before startup 
of the new, reconstructed of modified facility. If an objection is 
raised, the owner/operator has 30 days from receipt of the objection to 
respond with a revised fugitive coal dust emissions control plan. The 
owner/operator must operate in accordance with the revised fugitive 
coal dust emissions control plan.
    The requirement for the owner/operator to prepare and operate 
according to a submitted fugitive coal dust emissions control plan that 
is appropriate for site conditions must be included in the title V 
operating permit for the source. This and other requirements for title 
V permits are addressed in 40 CFR part 70.
    Finally, to the extent the comment raises issues beyond the scope 
of the supplemental proposal, EPA has no obligation to respond in this 
rulemaking.
    Comment: Three commenters noted that EPA's proposal requires 
submittal of the fugitive emissions control plan to the permitting 
authority 90 days prior to the compliance date. Commenters assumed this 
means the date for conducting the performance test under section 60.8, 
which is 60 days after reaching maximum production but not more than 
180 days. If EPA finalizes its proposed approach and subjects existing 
units to fugitive emissions control plans, commenters requested 
guidance on how the 90-day requirement is applied with respect to the 
effective date of the final rule and the proposed April 2008 
applicability date. The commenters explained that a modified open 
storage coal pile that is required to submit a fugitive dust plan may 
be required to comply with that requirement before the rule is 
effective and, therefore, could not meet the 90-day requirement.
    Response: The commenter's statement that some open storage coal 
piles are required to comply before the rule is effective is not 
completely accurate. With respect to open storage piles, May 27, 2009, 
is the date used to determine which sources qualify as ``new sources'' 
as that term is defined in CAA section 111(a)(2). The rule requirements 
for open storage piles apply to any stationary open storage pile 
sources, the construction or modification of which is commenced after 
that date. The compliance obligation doesn't arise until the effective 
date of the revised NSPS rule. However, because CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B) provides that standards of performance or revisions 
thereof shall become effective upon promulgation, all sources that 
qualify as ``new sources'' must be constructed in accordance with the 
regulations. Further because both the requirement that new sources 
include sources constructed or modified after the date of the proposed 
regulations and the requirement that the standards become effective 
upon promulgation are statutory requirements, EPA does not have 
authority to alter these requirements. The specific situation raised by 
the commenters is no longer relevant because the final rule does not 
require approval of the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan.

F. Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed requirements 
for subsequent PM emissions performance tests after the initial 
compliance test are either not needed or are too frequent. Commenters 
suggested that for most units, repeat PM performance testing should be 
required no more often than every five years. One commenter stated that 
once a source has established, based on an initial performance test, 
that a PM control device is properly sized and installed to meet the 
applicable PM limit, stack testing is not necessary to ensure continued 
compliance. Rather, compliance can be determined through visible 
observations using procedures like Method 22 or other operating 
parameters, like BLDS. Another commenter noted that if EPA ultimately 
adopts the BLDS requirement; it should recognize that facilities that 
use such devices are likely to operate in compliance with EPA's 
standards because deviations would be detected before any noncompliance 
occurs. According to the commenter, these facilities should, therefore, 
be exempt from ongoing opacity monitoring requirements, other than the 
initial and five-year performance tests.
    Response: The emissions testing requirements for PM, 
SO2, NOX, and CO accomplish two goals. First, 
emissions measurements are necessary to directly determine compliance 
with the applicable emissions limit. Direct measurement will also 
provide data necessary to verify the accuracy of the annual compliance 
certifications. The data will also augment the data supporting the 
regional and national emissions factors and emissions inventories. 
Second, periodic performance testing will verify the calibration and 
representativeness of the continuous monitoring system (e.g., BLDS, 
scrubber pressure drop) and, as necessary, indicate that readjustment 
is

[[Page 51971]]

required. EPA does not believe that these goals can be met with 
emissions testing for each separate source on a 5-year cycle. EPA has, 
however, provided a provision that, for affected facilities that emit 
at 50 percent or less of the applicable standard, repeat performance 
testing is required every 24 months (as opposed to every 12 months). 
Also, for well-performing (emitting at 90 percent or less of the 
applicable standard) similar, separate sources using identical control 
equipment, the final rule allows a single repeat performance test as 
adequate demonstration for up to four other similar, separate sources. 
Under this provision, a performance test for each of these similar 
affected sources is required to be conducted at at least once every 5 
years (i.e., one similar source would be required to conduct repeat 
performance testing every 12 months).
    Comment: Many commenters restated concerns raised in comments on 
the April 28, 2008, subpart Y amendment proposal about the accuracy and 
limitations of the Method 9 test method at levels below 10 percent 
opacity. As long as EPA continues to propose a subpart Y opacity limit 
of less than 10 percent, commenters contend that EPA must present 
compelling proof that an opacity standard below 10 percent can be 
accurately and reliably enforced by Method 9 observations.
    Response: We disagree with the implication that measurements made 
with Method 9 for opacity levels less than 10 percent are inaccurate or 
not suitable for compliance determinations. Foremost, the data used to 
establish the applicable opacity limit for the rule were collected 
using Method 9 in a manner consistent with the directions in the 
method. It is also worth noting that the method provides no 
restrictions on the use of the method for applicable limits less than 
10 percent opacity. The introduction to the method acknowledges the 
potential for measurement error in applying Method 9 and, in 
particular, the greater potential for negative bias than for positive 
bias if ambient contrasts between background and the emissions plume 
are less than ideal. In addition, we applied substantial allowance for 
measurement imprecision in establishing the limits. Thus, we believe 
that the relevant opacity limits established in the rule are reasonable 
and that Method 9 measurements may be used to determine compliance with 
those limits.
    Comment: Several commenters supported EPA's proposal to allow the 
owner/operator of an affected facility to decrease the observation 
period for a Method 9 performance test from 3 hours to 60 minutes, but 
suggested EPA consider a 30-minute test. EPA has provided no rationale 
for requiring a longer observation period in this NSPS than it is 
requiring under the 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO, NSPS. One commenter 
questioned EPA's proposed provision that would allow the performance 
test observation time reduction only if all 6-minute average opacity 
readings are less than or equal to 3 percent and all the individual 15-
second opacity observations are less than 20 percent during the initial 
60 minutes. The commenter also noted that the accuracy of Method 9 
readings below 5 percent is very questionable. The commenter believes 
that a 60-minute test is still unnecessarily long, given the number of 
emission points and the low expected variability. The commenter noted 
that when EPA finalized its NSPS for subpart OOO, it required only 30 
minutes of Method 9 testing for compliance with the fugitive emissions 
standard in all cases (section 60.675(b)(3), 74 FR 19313, column 3).
    Response: EPA continues to believe that a 60-minute observation 
period is reasonable and has decided that Method 9 opacity testing for 
a duration of 60 minutes should be required for all affected sources. 
However, an owner/operator may decrease the observation period for a 
Method 9 performance test from 60 minutes to 30 minutes if, during the 
initial 30 minutes of the performance test, all 6-minute averages are 
less than or equal to half the applicable opacity limit. This is a 
significant reduction from the standard 3-hour observation period for 
Method 9 performance tests. We disagree with the commenters' apparent 
assumption that subpart Y and subpart OOO are comparable and that the 
observation period should be the same in both rules. EPA believes that 
the Method 9 opacity testing observation period required by subpart Y 
is appropriate for coal preparation and processing operations.
    Comment: Many commenters stated concerns about the need for and 
requirements for EPA's proposal to determine the frequency of repeat 
Method 9 performance testing for an affected source according to a 
schedule based on the ``maximum 15-second opacity reading'' during the 
most recent Method 9 performance test. According to commenters, that 
proposal would be incredibly burdensome and unnecessarily stringent for 
no discernible reason, and EPA provided insufficient justification for 
significantly increasing the frequency of monitoring. Specific reasons 
cited by commenters include:
    [ssbox] Although it is certainly possible for a Method 9 reader to 
calculate opacities below 5 percent by averaging observations recorded 
at zero with those recorded at higher opacities (like 5 and 10 
percent), the accuracy and precision of Method 9 readings at levels 
below 5 (even below 10 percent) are questionable at best. Under EPA's 
proposal, even a small bias in a single observation could make a 
facility ineligible for use of Method 22, or result in a requirement to 
repeat a performance test in 7 days, rather than 30 days. Although 
basing testing frequency and eligibility for alternatives on a source's 
margin of compliance may be a generally sound concept, EPA has not 
provided any basis for applying that concept to such small differences 
in opacity readings (e.g., 3 versus 4 or 5 percent opacity), or to such 
low opacity levels.
    [ssbox] EPA's proposal for determining the frequency of Method 9 
testing would require extensive tracking, scheduling, and paperwork. 
Owners/operators would be required to track for each emission point (1) 
the alternative being used and the basis for eligibility, (2) the 
results of the required observation, and (3) the deadline for the next 
test.
    [ssbox] For each new Method 9 performance test, the owner or 
operator would need to provide 30 days notice to the State or local 
regulatory authority and, for Method 9 tests that cannot be conducted 
on time due to weather conditions, provide notice of rescheduling and 
report a deviation from applicable testing requirements (potentially 
subjecting the facility to enforcement).
    [ssbox] One commenter believes there are no cost savings by using 
consultants to come out and read Method 9 or Method 22 results. Because 
of mining regulations, a consultant would need to be accompanied by a 
certified coal miner, eliminating any cost reduction.
    [ssbox] The administrative burden and costs imposed, to implement 
the proposal cannot be justified considering the availability of 
simpler and more effective options. As with repeat PM performance 
testing, if the goal is to ensure that controls are maintained and that 
sources are identified and take action promptly to investigate and 
correct the cause of any visible emissions, then the same result could 
be accomplished with a combination of equipment inspection and Method 
22 readings.
    [ssbox] EPA proposed to provide an exemption from the repeat Method 
9 performance testing for thermal dryers that continuously monitor 
scrubber parameters, but only if Method 9

[[Page 51972]]

performance tests are conducted concurrently with each PM performance 
test. One commenter supported the exemption, but questioned why Method 
9 performance tests should be required.
    Response: The commenters are correct that the incentives to monitor 
less frequently provided to very well performing facilities will be 
predicated on demonstrations of very near zero visible emissions. Such 
conditions are consistent with findings made during the rule 
development that indicated that some facilities consistently reported 
no visible emissions. First, as previously explained, the final rule 
includes an opacity limit of less than 10 percent for coal handling 
facilities. The final rule includes a number of changes from the 
supplemental proposal's opacity testing and monitoring requirements. 
The final rule bases subsequent Method 9 opacity testing frequency on 
6-minute average opacity readings from the most recent performance 
test. As an alternative to subsequent Method 9 opacity testing, the 
final rule provides an option that includes daily walkthrough 
observations consisting of a single 15-second observation (visible 
emissions or no visible emissions) of each affected facility and 
requires that corrective actions be conducted when any visible 
emissions are observed. If visible emissions are still observed after 
corrective actions have been conducted, a Method 9 performance test is 
required within 45 operating days. EPA agrees that the monitoring 
provisions of the final rule will increase the recordkeeping and 
reporting burden to implement the rule. EPA rules require documentation 
of any measurements and the associated process operating conditions and 
regulatory compliance requirements; however, we disagree that this rule 
imposes any additional record keeping or reporting burden specifically 
in order to provide for the reduced monitoring frequency allowances. 
The subject provisions do not change those generic requirements. It is 
also worth noting that the PM and opacity limits are two distinct and 
separate applicable requirements of this rule. Opacity is an 
independent applicable requirement that is not necessarily a surrogate 
of the PM emissions limit or vice versa. Further, there is no potential 
for enforcement action for a test delayed by weather or other 
unforeseen conditions (see section 60.8(d)).
    Comment: Two commenters noted that EPA requested comment on whether 
requiring an annual average instantaneous opacity from 10 dumps is 
appropriate as an alternate to use of Method 22 for other affected 
facilities. The commenters clarified that the control effectiveness is 
not an annual average and the State of Wyoming Department of 
Environmental Quality (WDEQ) uses the 10 truck dump approach to 
evaluate whether BACT is being continuously maintained at any given 
truck dump. They further explained that the 10-truck evaluation 
currently in use in Wyoming is not a compliance determination. Rather, 
if WDEQ finds the 10-truck opacity greater than 20 percent, corrective 
action is required to return the dump to BACT requirements. The 
commenters do not support a rule mandating how a permitting authority 
determines the control effectiveness of truck dumps nor the trigger 
levels proposed for other coal-handling equipment. The commenters 
supported including truck dumps as part of the fugitive emissions 
control plan. Commenters explained that approach would allow the 
permitting agency to tailor the alternate monitoring to fit their 
source and type of controls employed. Commenters stated that one option 
for alternative monitoring would be the control effectiveness test 
using the 20 percent opacity limit, as determined by taking the maximum 
instantaneous opacity of fugitive emissions observed from each truck 
dump activity, averaged for ten trucks or less as determined by the 
permitting authority. According to commenters, truck dumps are 
intermittent sources and typically will always show compliance using 
Method 9. Absent any other EPA methods for evaluating intermittent 
sources, the commenters support an opacity limit of no greater than 5 
percent opacity.
    Four commenters stated that EPA misinterpreted the WDEQ method for 
monitoring truck-dump facilities and expressed the following concerns 
with applying the WDEQ method for the purpose of determining compliance 
with some, as yet unknown, opacity standard.
    [ssbox] The method is neither a Reference Method, nor an Equivalent 
Method, as defined by the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 
Regulations. Furthermore, the existing opacity certification training 
protocol does not address the observation technique the State of 
Wyoming is using. The protocol defines a process to designate an 
appropriate averaging time for 15-second opacity readings taken during 
the part of the operation in which the largest amount of emissions are 
expected to occur.
    [ssbox] An opacity limit based solely on the small amount of time 
that the truck is dumping should not be comparable to a opacity limit 
on a continuous point source such as a stack. Opacity read only while 
the truck is dumping, inappropriately skews the results to read the 
worse-case scenario and doesn't take into account the time when the 
emissions are non-existent due to the non-continuous nature of the 
source.
    [ssbox] Commenters recommended a better and more reasonable 
approach to monitoring truck-dump facilities. An initial compliance 
test using the visual observation protocol provided in Method 9. 
Compliance with the 15 percent opacity standard would be determined by 
averaging the 15-second opacity readings made during the duration of 
three separate truck dump events. Each test would commence when the 
truck bed begins to elevate and conclude when the truck bed returns to 
a horizontal position. This would provide a reasonable evaluation of 
opacity during the actual dumping event, as opposed to the Method 9 
protocol that would allow for observations long after the dumping event 
terminates. Thereafter, an owner/operator would conduct quarterly 
Method 9 compliance tests consistent with the above three truck-dump 
protocol. Owners/operators would supplement their quarterly Method 9 
compliance testing with monthly visual observations of the physical 
appearance of the equipment and the requirement to repair any 
deficiencies found.
    One commenter stated that the current standard utilized in Wyoming 
(6-minute Method 9 readings) has been criticized in the past, but it 
may be the most representative approach for non-continuous or sporadic 
emissions sources. The commenter explained that, typically, the 6-
minute Method 9 readings have been taken quarterly. The time between 
truck dumps are times of zero potential emissions from the truck dump 
control system. According to the commenter, in some ways the 6-minute 
Method 9 reading is very appropriate because it reflects most 
activities: the dumping, the coal passing through the hopper, and the 
periods of time when no activity is occurring. The commenter believes 
that it is important to adopt an opacity standard that is associated 
with the methodology as required by Method 9 procedures. The commenter 
further stated that if EPA wants to modify the existing requirement on 
truck dumps for Wyoming, an appropriate requirement would be to utilize 
the 6-minute Method 9 and set the opacity standard at greater than 10 
percent. The commenter believes that the standard would likely be 
appropriate for a variety of truck types (i.e. rear and belly dump) and 
control systems (i.e. stilling sheds, baghouses, and water spray bars). 
Two commenters stated that until the

[[Page 51973]]

necessary foundation for possible NSPS regulation can be established 
for coal unloading, any revision to subpart Y must expressly withdraw 
the Agency's interpretation of the late-1990s that subpart Y applies to 
coal unloading at coal preparation and processing plants.
    Response: EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to require 
coal truck dump operations to be subject to the same opacity limit as 
other coal-handling facilities. Data indicate that the various control 
measures currently used on truck dump operations are capable of meeting 
the final rule's opacity limit of less than 10 percent. However, due to 
the intermittent frequency of coal dumping, EPA has determined that it 
is inappropriate to require the same testing and monitoring of opacity 
emissions from coal truck dumps as are required for other affected 
coal-handling facilities subject to opacity limits. The variability in 
the number of coal trucks during any given period is likely to render 
Method 9 opacity testing over a 60-minute period meaningless. EPA 
disagrees with commenters who believe that opacity read only while the 
truck is dumping, inappropriately skews the results to read the worse-
case scenario because it doesn't take into account the time when the 
emissions are non-existent due to the non-continuous nature of this 
truck dump operations. In fact, EPA believes that opacity measurements 
taken during truck dumping is the appropriate time to conduct Method 9 
opacity testing. We agree with other commenters who believe that this 
approach would provide a reasonable evaluation of opacity during the 
actual dumping event, as opposed to Method 9 protocol that would allow 
for observations long after the dumping event terminates. In the 
supplemental proposal, EPA requested comment on whether requiring an 
annual average instantaneous opacity from 10 truck dumps is appropriate 
as an alternate to monitoring required for other affected facilities. 
After considering the public comments, we have decided to include in 
the final rule an approach to monitoring truck dump operations that was 
suggested by a commenter. Owners/operators of all affected facilities 
would be required to conduct an initial compliance test using Method 9. 
Compliance with the less than 10 percent opacity standard will be 
determined by averaging the 15-second opacity readings made during the 
duration of three separate truck dump events. A truck dump event begins 
when the truck bed begins to elevate and concludes when the truck bed 
returns to a horizontal position. The final rule also requires monthly 
visual observations of the equipment and expeditious maintenance if any 
deficiencies are observed. Finally, subsequent Method 9 opacity testing 
using the three-truck dump procedure is required every 90 days.

G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Comment: Two commenters stated that they did not object to the 
proposed reporting requirement for affected owners/operators to be able 
to enter data from their performance evaluations conducted at their 
plants to demonstrate compliance with the applicable subpart Y 
standards electronically into an EPA database (identified as WebFIRE). 
Numerous other commenters specifically objected to the electronic 
reporting requirement. Commenters' cite various reasons for opposing 
the requirement, including (1) the unnecessary burden of electronically 
reporting test results; (2) uncertainty regarding whether the proposed 
reporting requirement meets the requirements of the Cross-Media 
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), which is codified at 40 CFR Part 
3; (3) the lack of sufficient justification for requiring that data be 
reported electronically, rather than merely standardizing where results 
are sent and in what form; (4) the lack of any mechanism for sources to 
confirm the authenticity of data submitted to the Web site for their 
facility by a stack testing company; (5) the inability of ERT to accept 
opacity data or continuous monitoring system (CMS) data; and (6) the 
finalizing of a regulatory requirement based on an ``expectation'' of 
WebFIRE and the ERT being operational in early 2011 and of the ERT 
being CROMERR compliant before 2011 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0031-0284, p. 9). 
The commenters stated that EPA should proceed with its plans for 
development of WebFIRE/ERT and allow sources the option to report 
electronically with those tools when they become available. If WebFIRE 
does become available in the future and EPA still believes that 
mandatory electronic reporting through WebFIRE is appropriate, EPA can 
re-propose the requirement. However, in the meantime, commenters 
contend that EPA must provide sources the option of continuing to 
submit reports by mail after 2011, just as EPA did in 40 CFR Part 60, 
subpart Da (section 60.49Da(v)(4), 74 FR 5072 and 5083, January 28, 
2009). Other commenters stated that EPA should develop an electronic 
data exchange with the State/local/Tribal agencies to get the necessary 
performance test data. Another commenter stated that by collecting data 
under CAA section 111, rather than CAA section 114, EPA is overstepping 
its authority.
    Response: The commenters are correct that the Agency does not 
intend to store visible emissions or CMS operating data used for 
compliance on WebFIRE. Source owners and testers need not submit 
visible emissions or CMS data to WebFIRE or any other national 
database. The source owners must address only those data reporting and 
record keeping requirements relevant to compliance determinations and 
certifications (e.g., operating permitting requirements). In this rule, 
EPA intends that owners/operators submit to WebFIRE pollutant emissions 
data, particularly those data from performance tests for PM or other 
pollutants. The purpose of WebFIRE is to be the vehicle for making such 
data available for use in establishing the most representative 
emissions factors for use in developing effective national and regional 
emissions inventories and other purposes. With this provision, the 
Agency is exercising the authority provided under CAA section 114(a)(1) 
to have sources collect and submit environmental data needed to 
implement the CAA.

H. Assessment of Impacts

    Comment: One commenter stated that the supplemental proposal 
continues the same inadequate approach to consideration of the costs 
and environmental, energy, and economic impacts of amendments to the 
subpart Y NSPS. The commenter noted that even though the supplemental 
proposal greatly expanded the coverage of the subpart Y NSPS, both in 
terms of operations covered and in terms of pollutants regulated, EPA 
asserted that it will not increase control costs or recordkeeping and 
reporting costs above those of the April 2008 proposal. The commenter 
believes that EPA should evaluate the costs and emission reduction 
benefits of the proposed standards. The commenter explained that 
because of the definitions of ``modification'' and ``reconstruction'' 
as applied to NSPS, a coal preparation plant at a cement manufacturing 
facility may be considered ``modified'' or ``reconstructed,'' and 
therefore subject to the amended subpart Y, even when the activity that 
constitutes a ``modification'' or ``reconstruction'' results in little 
or no increase in actual emissions.
    Response: EPA has assessed the costs, environmental, energy, and 
economic impacts associated with the requirements of the final rule. 
Control

[[Page 51974]]

costs, testing and monitoring costs, and recordkeeping and reporting 
costs have been estimated for each coal preparation and processing 
operation anticipated to become subject to requirements of the final 
rule. As previously explained in this preamble, in-line coal mills at 
Portland cement manufacturing plants are not regulated by subpart Y. 
Impacts for coal-handling operations that would be regulated by subpart 
Y and are located at a Portland cement manufacturing plant have been 
estimated.
    Comment: Several comments were received regarding EPA's approach to 
analyzing the information collection request (ICR) burden of affected 
owners/operators that would result from the implementation of subpart Y 
amendments in the supplemental proposal notice. Commenters stated that 
EPA has grossly underestimated the annual monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping burden for the effort of the increased monitoring and 
opacity performance testing for specified affected facilities. The 
commenters noted that the existing ICR estimates do not take into 
account the significant additional monitoring requirements contained in 
the proposed amendments. Commenters believe that EPA's approach to 
analyzing the ICR burdens associated with the rulemaking is 
inconsistent with the directives of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and 
fails to address the actual burdens that will result from the 
amendments proposed in the supplemental action. Commenters requested 
that EPA prepare a new ICR that accurately projects the burden 
associated with the most recently proposed requirements for monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting.
    Response: EPA prepared and submitted a revised ICR to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). The revised ICR addresses all revisions to 
the subpart Y NSPS made in the final rule--both those proposed in the 
April 28, 2008, proposal and those proposed in the May 27, 2009, 
supplemental proposal.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    In setting standards, the CAA requires EPA to consider costs and 
environmental, energy, and economic impacts. Those impacts are 
expressed as incremental differences between the impacts of coal 
preparation and processing facilities complying with the amendments and 
the current NSPS requirements of subpart Y (i.e., baseline). Impacts 
are presented for coal preparation and processing plants for which 
construction, modification, or reconstruction is expected to commence 
over the 5 years following promulgation of the revised NSPS. EPA 
estimates that 22 new coal preparation and processing plants will 
comply with subpart Y in the next 5 years. These new plants are 
anticipated to consist of coal-handling operations (coal processing and 
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer and 
loading systems) and will be built at 2 bituminous mines, 2 
subbituminous mines, 1 coke production facility, 6 utility plants, 10 
cement manufacturing plants, and 1 industrial site. Conservative 
assumptions were used in assessing impacts associated with the 22 new 
plants. For example, emissions from all affected facilities are assumed 
to be collected and vented through a fabric filter, whereas, owners/
operators may opt to use another suitable and less costly control 
measure. Because a new thermal dryer has not been installed at a 
bituminous coal mine in the past decade, EPA does not anticipate there 
will be any new thermal dryers in the next 5 years. Thermal dryers are 
not, therefore, included in the assessment of economic impacts 
resulting from the amendments to subpart Y. Nonetheless, we have 
estimated costs and environmental and energy impacts for 4 model 
thermal dryers that would result from the amended NSPS in the unlikely 
event that a new thermal dryer is constructed. Two of the model thermal 
dryers are direct contact, pulverized bituminous coal-fired dryers 
(with coal sulfur contents of 1.5 percent and 3.0 percent) at two 
bituminous mines; one is a natural gas-fired recirculating dryer at an 
industrial facility; and one is a waste heat-fired indirect dryer at an 
electric utility power plant. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260 
for details regarding the impacts analyses.

A. What Are the Primary Air Impacts?

    EPA estimated PM emissions reductions for coal-handling operations 
at each type of model coal preparation and processing plant (i.e., at 
bituminous mines, subbituminous mines, coke production facilities, 
utility plants, cement manufacturing plants, and industrial sites). We 
then determined approximate nationwide PM emissions reductions 
associated with the projected 22 new coal preparation and processing 
plants by distributing the new plants by site type (e.g., 2 plants at 
bituminous mines, 2 plants at subbituminous mines, etc.). Nationwide PM 
emissions reduction is estimated to be approximately 7,600 tpy. We also 
estimated PM, SO2, NOX, and CO emissions 
reductions for each model thermal dryer to demonstrate the pollutant 
reductions that the NSPS would achieve if a new thermal dryer were 
built. PM emission reductions are estimated to range from approximately 
90 tpy to 14,214 tpy, with the greatest PM reduction coming from the 
model indirect dryer which, until promulgation of these amendments, has 
not been subject to subpart Y. SO2 emission reductions from 
the model direct contact thermal dryers are estimated to range from 526 
tpy to 1,054 tpy, based on coal sulfur contents of 1.5 percent and 3.0 
percent, respectively. The estimated NOX emission reductions 
of 108 tpy and CO emissions reductions of 19 tpy are the same for both 
model direct contact thermal dryers. Neither natural gas-fired 
recirculating dryers nor waste heat-fired indirect dryers are subject 
to the SO2, NOX, or CO emission limits.

B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?

    EPA estimates that for the 22 coal preparation and processing 
plants projected to be built, approximately 7,600 tpy of additional 
solid waste will be generated as a result of operating systems that 
collect and vent exhaust gases through a fabric filter. There will be 
no waste water impacts. While EPA believes it is unlikely that any new 
thermal dryers will be constructed in the next 5 years, we estimate 
that 30 million-gallons per year of waste water would be generated by 
each of the model thermal dryers using venturi scrubbers. The solid 
waste that would be generated by the model thermal dryers using fabric 
filters is estimated to range from 323 tpy to 14,365 tpy.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    EPA estimates that approximately 11,800 megawatt-hours per year 
(MWh/year) of additional electricity will be required to support the 
collection of, and venting through a fabric filter, exhaust gases from 
the 22 new coal preparation and processing plants that are projected to 
be constructed. While EPA believes it is unlikely that any new thermal 
dryers will be constructed in the next 5 years, we estimate that 23 
MWh/year to 4,200 MWh/year of additional electricity would be required 
by the control technologies associated with the four model thermal 
dryers.

D. What Are the Secondary Air Impacts?

    Secondary air impacts are direct impacts that result from the 
increase in electricity use that we estimate may be required to enable 
facilities to achieve the requirements of a rule. We estimate that the 
rule's requirements could result in emissions of 1 tpy of PM, 8 tpy of

[[Page 51975]]

SO2, 5 tpy of NOX, and 1 tpy of CO from the 
increased electricity useage by the 22 new coal preparation and 
processing plants that are projected to be constructed. While EPA 
believes it is unlikely that any new thermal dryers will be constructed 
in the next 5 years, we estimate that the rule's requirements for 
thermal dryers could result in emissions of 4 to 680 pounds per year 
(lb/yr) of PM, 40 to 5,880 lb/yr of SO2, 20 to 3,780 lb/yr 
of NOX, and 4 to 840 lb/yr of CO from the increased 
electricity usage by the four model thermal dryers.

E. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?

    EPA estimates that the national total costs for the 22 new coal 
preparation and processing plants projected to be constructed to comply 
with requirements of the final rule would be approximately $7.9 million 
in each of the first 5 years of compliance. This estimate includes the 
costs of control technology, testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping and 
reporting. EPA assessed the economic impacts of the amendments to the 
NSPS for coal preparation and processing plants. An economic impact 
analysis focuses on changes in market prices and output levels. Both 
the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the final rule and 
the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a 
role in determining how the market will change in response to the rule. 
The costs to comply with the final rule on a facility basis are all 
projected to be less than one percent of sales. These small costs are 
not expected to result in a significant market impact whether they are 
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed.
    While EPA believes it is unlikely that any new thermal dryers will 
be constructed, these amendments will protect the public health and 
environment by assuring that appropriate controls will be installed on 
future new thermal dryers should any be built. We estimate that the 
total costs for the model thermal dryers to comply with requirements of 
the final rule could range from $133,000 per year to $1.54 million per 
year, with the highest total cost representing a direct contact model 
thermal dryer using coal with a higher sulfur content (i.e., 3 percent) 
and that would be subject to PM, SO2, NOX, and CO 
emission limits.
    The majority of States that have requirements beyond the NSPS 
already require controls and work practice standards for coal 
preparation and processing plant operations. In addition, any coal 
preparation and processing plant that is subject to NSR would have 
control requirements significantly more stringent than those of the 
1976 NSPS. Thus, a benefit of the amendments to subpart Y will be that 
affected facilities located in States that do not require controls 
beyond the existing NSPS will be required to comply with emission 
standards based on current BDT for coal preparation and processing 
plants.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise 
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO. 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under EO 
12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 
been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The amendments to the existing standards of performance for coal 
preparation and processing plants add new monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements. All affected facilities constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified on or after April 28, 2008, are required to 
conduct initial performance testing. The amendments include a reduction 
in Method 9 test duration, and for subsequent Method 9 testing, a 
provision allowing simultaneous Method 9 testing for up to three 
emission points. Frequency of subsequent Method 9 testing is based on 
performance during the most recent test (i.e., subsequent testing is 
required within 90 days or 12 months of previous test). The amendments 
also provide an alternative to more frequent subsequent Method 9 
testing that consists of monthly visual observations of process and 
control equipment, daily 15-second observations of each affected 
facility with a requirement to conduct corrective actions if any 
visible emissions are observed, and Method 9 testing at least once 
every 5 years. Separate testing and monitoring requirements are 
provided for coal truck dump operations. Owners/operators of open 
storage coal piles constructed on or after May 27, 2009, are required 
to prepare, and operate in accordance with, a fugitive dust emissions 
control plan that addresses the types of control measures that will be 
used to minimize fugitive coal dust emissions from the source's open 
storage piles. The information generated by the requirements described 
above will be used by EPA to ensure that any new affected facilities 
comply with the emission limits and other requirements. Records and 
reports are necessary to enable EPA or States to identify new affected 
facilities that may not be in compliance with the requirements. Based 
on reported information, EPA will decide which units and what records 
or processes should be inspected. The amendments do not require any 
notifications or reports beyond those required by the General 
Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific 
information needed to determine compliance. These recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies 
in 40 CFR Part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.
    The nationwide monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for 
this collection over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 
total 27,578 labor-hours at a cost of $2,601,624. The nationwide 3-year 
average burden is estimated to be 9,193 labor-hours per year and 
$867,208 per year. Based on 14 respondents, the average burden hours 
per respondent are estimated to be 657 hours at an estimated cost of 
$61,943 per respondent. Over the first 3 years of this ICR, the 
annualized total capital and start-up costs are estimated to be 
$674,528 and the total operation and maintenance costs are estimated to 
be $1,151,690. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. EPA displays OMB control numbers 
various ways. For example, EPA lists OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR Part 9, which we amend periodically. 
Additionally, we may display the OMB control number in another part of 
the CFR, or in a valid Federal Register notice, or by other appropriate 
means. The OMB control number display will become effective

[[Page 51976]]

the earliest of any of the methods authorized in 40 CFR Part 9.
    When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a Federal 
Register notice announcing this approval and displaying the OMB control 
number for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in this final rule. We will also publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to consolidate the display of the 
OMB control number with other approved information collection 
requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of these final amendments to 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, on small entities, small entity is defined 
as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business 
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. We are not 
aware of any small entities in the coal preparation and processing 
regulated industry. The subpart Y standards are applicable to 
facilities that process (i.e., break, crush, screen, clean, or dry) 
more than 181 Mg (200 tons) of coal per day.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
The total annual control, testing and monitoring, and recordkeeping and 
reporting costs of the final rule at year five is $7.9 million. Thus, 
this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 
205 of UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. We are not aware of 
any coal preparation and processing plants owned by small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in EO 13132. These final amendments will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments and 
will not preempt State law. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this 
action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This final action does not have Tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). We are not 
aware of any coal preparation and processing facilities owned by an 
Indian Tribe. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such 
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This final action is not subject 
to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in this final action 
will cause most coal preparation and processing operations that become 
subject to subpart Y to install new control devices, resulting in 
approximately 12,400 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity 
being used. Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting 
from this action, EPA does not expect significant adverse energy 
effects. Further, we have concluded that this final rule is not likely 
to have any adverse energy effects because

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable VCS.
    This final rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided 
to use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its 
manual methods of measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide 
or nitrogen dioxide content of the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 
19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 3B of appendix A-2 
and EPA Methods 6, 6A, and 7 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR Part 60. This 
standard is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
    EPA also has decided to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5B, 5D, 6, 6A, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, 17, and 22 (40 
CFR part 60, appendices A-1 through A-7). While the Agency has 
identified 20 VCS as being potentially applicable, we do not propose to 
use these standards in this final rulemaking. The use of these VCS 
would be impractical because they do not meet the objectives of the 
standards cited in this final rule. See the docket of this final rule 
for the reasons for these determinations on the standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practical and 
permitted by law, to make

[[Page 51977]]

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects 
on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of 
environmental protection for all affected populations without having 
any disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any populations, including any minority or low-income 
population. The final rule will assure that all new coal preparation 
and processing plants install appropriate controls to limit health 
impacts to nearby populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This final rule will be effective October 8, 2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 25, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60, 
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a)(13);
0
b. By removing paragraph (a)(14);
0
c. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(15) through (a)(93) as paragraphs 
(a)(14) through (a)(92); and
0
d. By revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows.


Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by Reference.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (13) ASTM D388-77, 90, 91, 95, 98a, 99 (Reapproved 2004)[egr]\1\, 
Standard Specification for Classification of Coals by Rank, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  60.24(h)(8), 60.41 of subpart D of this part, 
60.45(f)(4)(i), 60.45(f)(4)(ii), 60.45(f)(4)(vi), 60.41Da of subpart Da 
of this part, 60.41b of subpart Db of this part, 60.41c of subpart Dc 
of this part, 60.251 of subpart Y of this part, and 60.4102.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec.  60.106(e)(2) of 
subpart J, Sec. Sec.  60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), 
(h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), 
(f)(2), (f)(4), (g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), 
(a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and 
60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2) 
of subpart Ja, Sec.  60.257(b)(3) of subpart Y, tables 1 and 3 of 
subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 
and Sec. Sec.  60.4415(a)(2) and 60.4415(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this 
part.
* * * * *

Subpart Y--[Amended]

0
3. Part 60 is amended by revising subpart Y to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart Y--Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing 
Plants
60.250 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.251 Definitions.
60.252 Standards for thermal dryers.
60.253 Standards for pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment.
60.254 Standards for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal 
storage systems, transfer and loading systems, and open storage 
piles.
60.255 Performance tests and other compliance requirements.
60.256 Continuous monitoring requirements.
60.257 Test methods and procedures.
60.258 Reporting and recordkeeping.

Subpart Y--Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and 
Processing Plants


Sec.  60.250  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to affected facilities in 
coal preparation and processing plants that process more than 181 
megagrams (Mg) (200 tons) of coal per day.
    (b) The provisions in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  60.252(a), Sec.  
60.253(a), Sec.  60.254(a), Sec.  60.255(a), and Sec.  60.256(a) of 
this subpart are applicable to any of the following affected facilities 
that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after 
October 27, 1974, and on or before April 28, 2008: Thermal dryers, 
pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment (air tables), coal processing and 
conveying equipment (including breakers and crushers), and coal storage 
systems, transfer and loading systems.
    (c) The provisions in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  60.252(b)(1) and (c), 
Sec.  60.253(b), Sec.  60.254(b), Sec.  60.255(b) through (h), Sec.  
60.256(b) and (c), Sec.  60.257, and Sec.  60.258 of this subpart are 
applicable to any of the following affected facilities that commenced 
construction, reconstruction or modification after April 28, 2008, and 
on or before May 27, 2009: Thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-cleaning 
equipment (air tables), coal processing and conveying equipment 
(including breakers and crushers), and coal storage systems, transfer 
and loading systems.
    (d) The provisions in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  60.252(b)(1) through (3), 
and (c), Sec.  60.253(b), Sec.  60.254(b) and (c), Sec.  60.255(b) 
through (h), Sec.  60.256(b) and (c), Sec.  60.257, and Sec.  60.258 of 
this subpart are applicable to any of the following affected facilities 
that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification after May 
27, 2009: Thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment (air 
tables), coal processing and conveying equipment (including breakers 
and crushers), coal storage systems, transfer and loading systems, and 
open storage piles.


Sec.  60.251  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the 
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act (Act) and in subpart A of this 
part.
    (a) Anthracite means coal that is classified as anthracite 
according to the American Society of Testing and Materials in ASTM D388 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17).

[[Page 51978]]

    (b) Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust loadings) in 
the exhaust of a fabric filter to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, 
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative 
particulate matter loadings.
    (c) Bituminous coal means solid fossil fuel classified as 
bituminous coal by ASTM D388 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
60.17).
    (d) Coal means:
    (1) For units constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before 
May 27, 2009, all solid fossil fuels classified as anthracite, 
bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by ASTM D388 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  60.17).
    (2) For units constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 
2009, all solid fossil fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous, 
subbituminous, or lignite by ASTM D388 (incorporated by reference--see 
Sec.  60.17), and coal refuse.
    (e) Coal preparation and processing plant means any facility 
(excluding underground mining operations) which prepares coal by one or 
more of the following processes: breaking, crushing, screening, wet or 
dry cleaning, and thermal drying.
    (f) Coal processing and conveying equipment means any machinery 
used to reduce the size of coal or to separate coal from refuse, and 
the equipment used to convey coal to or remove coal and refuse from the 
machinery. This includes, but is not limited to, breakers, crushers, 
screens, and conveyor belts. Equipment located at the mine face is not 
considered to be part of the coal preparation and processing plant.
    (g) Coal refuse means waste products of coal mining, physical coal 
cleaning, and coal preparation operations (e.g. culm, gob, etc.) 
containing coal, matrix material, clay, and other organic and inorganic 
material.
    (h) Coal storage system means any facility used to store coal 
except for open storage piles.
    (i) Design controlled potential PM emissions rate means the 
theoretical particulate matter (PM) emissions (Mg) that would result 
from the operation of a control device at its design emissions rate 
(grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm)), multiplied by the 
maximum design flow rate (dry standard cubic meter per minute (dscm/
min)), multiplied by 60 (minutes per hour (min/hr)), multiplied by 
8,760 (hours per year (hr/yr)), divided by 1,000,000 (megagrams per 
gram (Mg/g)).
    (j) Indirect thermal dryer means a thermal dryer that reduces the 
moisture content of coal through indirect heating of the coal through 
contact with a heat transfer medium. If the source of heat (the source 
of combustion or furnace) is subject to another subpart of this part, 
then the furnace and the associated emissions are not part of the 
affected facility. However, if the source of heat is not subject to 
another subpart of this part, then the furnace and the associated 
emissions are part of the affected facility.
    (k) Lignite means coal that is classified as lignite A or B 
according to the American Society of Testing and Materials in ASTM D388 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17).
    (l) Mechanical vent means any vent that uses a powered mechanical 
drive (machine) to induce air flow.
    (m) Open storage pile means any facility, including storage area, 
that is not enclosed that is used to store coal, including the 
equipment used in the loading, unloading, and conveying operations of 
the facility.
    (n) Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and 
the following midnight during which coal is prepared or processed at 
any time by the affected facility. It is not necessary that coal be 
prepared or processed the entire 24-hour period.
    (o) Pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment means:
    (1) For units constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before 
May 27, 2009, any facility which classifies bituminous coal by size or 
separates bituminous coal from refuse by application of air stream(s).
    (2) For units constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 
2009, any facility which classifies coal by size or separates coal from 
refuse by application of air stream(s).
    (p) Potential combustion concentration means the theoretical 
emissions (nanograms per joule (ng/J) or pounds per million British 
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) heat input) that would result from combustion 
of a fuel in an uncleaned state without emission control systems, as 
determined using Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
    (q) Subbituminous coal means coal that is classified as 
subbituminous A, B, or C according to the American Society of Testing 
and Materials in ASTM D388 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17).
    (r) Thermal dryer means:
    (1) For units constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before 
May 27, 2009, any facility in which the moisture content of bituminous 
coal is reduced by contact with a heated gas stream which is exhausted 
to the atmosphere.
    (2) For units constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 
2009, any facility in which the moisture content of coal is reduced by 
either contact with a heated gas stream which is exhausted to the 
atmosphere or through indirect heating of the coal through contact with 
a heated heat transfer medium.
    (s) Transfer and loading system means any facility used to transfer 
and load coal for shipment.


Sec.  60.252  Standards for thermal dryers.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test is 
conducted or required to be completed under Sec.  60.8, whichever date 
comes first, an owner or operator of a thermal dryer constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified on or before April 28, 2008, subject to the 
provisions of this subpart must meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the thermal dryer any gases which contain PM in excess 
of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf)); 
and
    (2) The owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the thermal dryer any gases which exhibit 20 percent 
opacity or greater.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, on and 
after the date on which the performance test is conducted or required 
to be completed under Sec.  60.8, whichever date comes first, an owner 
or operator of a thermal dryer constructed, reconstructed, or modified 
after April 28, 2008, subject to the provisions of this subpart must 
meet the applicable standards for PM and opacity, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. In addition, and except as provided 
in paragraph (c) of this section, on and after the date on which the 
performance test is conducted or required to be completed under Sec.  
60.8, whichever date comes first, an owner or operator of a thermal 
dryer constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 29, 2009, 
subject to the provisions of this subpart must also meet the applicable 
standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2), and combined nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must meet the requirements for PM 
emissions in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, as 
applicable to the affected facility.

[[Page 51979]]

    (i) For each thermal dryer constructed or reconstructed after April 
28, 2008, the owner or operator must meet the requirements of 
(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(1)(i)(B).
    (A) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the thermal dryer any gases that contain PM in excess 
of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf)); 
and
    (B) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the thermal dryer any gases that exhibit 10 percent 
opacity or greater.
    (ii) For each thermal dryer modified after April 28, 2008, the 
owner or operator must meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (A) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases which contain PM in 
excess of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf); and
    (B) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases which exhibit 20 
percent opacity or greater.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, 
for each thermal dryer constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 
May 27, 2009, the owner or operator must meet the requirements for 
SO2 emissions in either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of 
this section.
    (i) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases that contain 
SO2 in excess of 85 ng/J (0.20 lb/MMBtu) heat input; or
    (ii) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases that either contain 
SO2 in excess of 520 ng/J (1.20 lb/MMBtu) heat input or 
contain SO2 in excess of 10 percent of the potential 
combustion concentration (i.e., the facility must achieve at least a 90 
percent reduction of the potential combustion concentration and may not 
exceed a maximum emissions rate of 1.2 lb/MMBtu (520 ng/J)).
    (iii) Thermal dryers that receive all of their thermal input from a 
source other than coal or residual oil, that receive all of their 
thermal input from a source subject to an SO2 limit under 
another subpart of this part, or that use waste heat or residual from 
the combustion of coal or residual oil as their only thermal input are 
not subject to the SO2 limits of this section.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section, 
the owner or operator must meet the requirements for combined 
NOx and CO emissions in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of 
this section, as applicable to the affected facility.
    (i) For each thermal dryer constructed after May 27, 2009, the 
owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere 
from the affected facility any gases which contain a combined 
concentration of NOX and CO in excess of 280 ng/J (0.65 lb/
MMBtu) heat input.
    (ii) For each thermal dryer reconstructed or modified after May 27, 
2009, the owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases which contain combined 
concentration of NOX and CO in excess of 430 ng/J (1.0 lb/
MMBtu) heat input.
    (iii) Thermal dryers that receive all of their thermal input from a 
source other than coal or residual oil, that receive all of their 
thermal input from a source subject to a NOX limit and/or CO 
limit under another subpart of this part, or that use waste heat or 
residual from the combustion of coal or residual oil as their only 
thermal input, are not subject to the combined NOX and CO 
limits of this section.
    (c) Thermal dryers receiving all of their thermal input from an 
affected facility covered under another 40 CFR Part 60 subpart must 
meet the applicable requirements in that subpart but are not subject to 
the requirements in this subpart.


Sec.  60.253  Standards for pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test is 
conducted or required to be completed under Sec.  60.8, whichever date 
comes first, an owner or operator of pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before April 28, 2008, 
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment any gases that 
contain PM in excess of 0.040 g/dscm (0.017 gr/dscf); and
    (2) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment any gases that 
exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater.
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test is 
conducted or required to be completed under Sec.  60.8, whichever date 
comes first, an owner or operator of pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, must meet 
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) The owner of operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment any gases that 
contain PM in excess or 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf); and
    (2) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment any gases that 
exhibit greater than 5 percent opacity.


Sec.  60.254  Standards for coal processing and conveying equipment, 
coal storage systems, transfer and loading systems, and open storage 
piles.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test is 
conducted or required to be completed under Sec.  60.8, whichever date 
comes first, an owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into 
the atmosphere from any coal processing and conveying equipment, coal 
storage system, or coal transfer and loading system processing coal 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before April 28, 2008, 
gases which exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater.
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test is 
conducted or required to be completed under Sec.  60.8, whichever date 
comes first, an owner or operator of any coal processing and conveying 
equipment, coal storage system, or coal transfer and loading system 
processing coal constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 
2008, must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 
this section, as applicable to the affected facility.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 
owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere 
from the affected facility any gases which exhibit 10 percent opacity 
or greater.
    (2) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any mechanical vent on an affected facility gases which 
contain particulate matter in excess of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf).
    (3) Equipment used in the loading, unloading, and conveying 
operations of open storage piles are not subject to the opacity 
limitations of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (c) The owner or operator of an open storage pile, which includes 
the equipment used in the loading, unloading, and conveying operations 
of the affected facility, constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 
May 27, 2009, must prepare and operate in

[[Page 51980]]

accordance with a submitted fugitive coal dust emissions control plan 
that is appropriate for the site conditions as specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) The fugitive coal dust emissions control plan must identify and 
describe the control measures the owner or operator will use to 
minimize fugitive coal dust emissions from each open storage pile.
    (2) For open coal storage piles, the fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan must require that one or more of the following control 
measures be used to minimize to the greatest extent practicable 
fugitive coal dust: Locating the source inside a partial enclosure, 
installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, applying 
appropriate chemical dust suppression agents on the source (when the 
provisions of paragraph (c)(6) of this section are met), use of a wind 
barrier, compaction, or use of a vegetative cover. The owner or 
operator must select, for inclusion in the fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan, the control measure or measures listed in this paragraph 
that are most appropriate for site conditions. The plan must also 
explain how the measure or measures selected are applicable and 
appropriate for site conditions. In addition, the plan must be revised 
as needed to reflect any changing conditions at the source.
    (3) Any owner or operator of an affected facility that is required 
to have a fugitive coal dust emissions control plan may petition the 
Administrator to approve, for inclusion in the plan for the affected 
facility, alternative control measures other than those specified in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The petition must include a description of the alternative 
control measures, a copy of the fugitive coal dust emissions control 
plan for the affected facility that includes the alternative control 
measures, and information sufficient for EPA to evaluate the 
demonstrations required by paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) The owner or operator must either demonstrate that the 
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan that includes the alternate 
control measures will provide equivalent overall environmental 
protection or demonstrate that it is either economically or technically 
infeasible for the affected facility to use the control measures 
specifically identified in paragraph (c)(2).
    (iii) While the petition is pending, the owner or operator must 
comply with the fugitive coal dust emissions control plan including the 
alternative control measures submitted with the petition. Operation in 
accordance with the plan submitted with the petition shall be deemed to 
constitute compliance with the requirement to operate in accordance 
with a fugitive coal dust emissions control plan that contains one of 
the control measures specifically identified in paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section while the petition is pending.
    (iv) If the petition is approved by the Administrator, the 
alternative control measures will be approved for inclusion in the 
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan for the affected facility. In 
lieu of amending this subpart, a letter will be sent to the facility 
describing the specific control measures approved. The facility shall 
make any such letters and the applicable fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan available to the public. If the Administrator determines 
it is appropriate, the conditions and requirements of the letter can be 
reviewed and changed at any point.
    (4) The owner or operator must submit the fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan to the Administrator or delegated authority as 
specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated 
authority prior to startup of the new, reconstructed, or modified 
affected facility, or 30 days after the effective date of this rule, 
whichever is later.
    (ii) The plan must be revised as needed to reflect any changing 
conditions at the source. Such revisions must be dated and submitted to 
the Administrator or delegated authority before a source can operate 
pursuant to these revisions. The Administrator or delegated authority 
may also object to such revisions as specified in paragraph (c)(5) of 
this section.
    (5) The Administrator or delegated authority may object to the 
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan as specified in paragraphs 
(c)(5)(i) and (c)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The Administrator or delegated authority may object to any 
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan that it has determined does 
not meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (ii) If an objection is raised, the owner or operator, within 30 
days from receipt of the objection, must submit a revised fugitive coal 
dust emissions control plan to the Administrator or delegated 
authority. The owner or operator must operate in accordance with the 
revised fugitive coal dust emissions control plan. The Administrator or 
delegated authority retain the right, under paragraph (c)(5) of this 
section, to object to the revised control plan if it determines the 
plan does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 
this section.
    (6) Where appropriate chemical dust suppression agents are selected 
by the owner or operator as a control measure to minimize fugitive coal 
dust emissions, (1) only chemical dust suppressants with Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-compliant material safety data 
sheets (MSDS) are to be allowed; (2) the MSDS must be included in the 
fugitive coal dust emissions control plan; and (3) the owner or 
operator must consider and document in the fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan the site-specific impacts associated with the use of such 
chemical dust suppressants.


Sec.  60.255  Performance tests and other compliance requirements.

    (a) An owner or operator of each affected facility that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before April 28, 
2008, must conduct all performance tests required by Sec.  60.8 to 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards using the 
methods identified in Sec.  60.257.
    (b) An owner or operator of each affected facility that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after April 28, 2008, 
must conduct performance tests according to the requirements of Sec.  
60.8 and the methods identified in Sec.  60.257 to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable emissions standards in this subpart as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) For each affected facility subject to a PM, SO2, or 
combined NOX and CO emissions standard, an initial 
performance test must be performed. Thereafter, a new performance test 
must be conducted according the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) If the results of the most recent performance test demonstrate 
that emissions from the affected facility are greater than 50 percent 
of the applicable emissions standard, a new performance test must be 
conducted within 12 calendar months of the date that the previous 
performance test was required to be completed.
    (ii) If the results of the most recent performance test demonstrate 
that emissions from the affected facility are 50 percent or less of the 
applicable emissions standard, a new performance test must be conducted 
within 24 calendar months of the date that the

[[Page 51981]]

previous performance test was required to be completed.
    (iii) An owner or operator of an affected facility that has not 
operated for the 60 calendar days prior to the due date of a 
performance test is not required to perform the subsequent performance 
test until 30 calendar days after the next operating day.
    (2) For each affected facility subject to an opacity standard, an 
initial performance test must be performed. Thereafter, a new 
performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, 
except as provided for in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. 
Performance test and other compliance requirements for coal truck dump 
operations are specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (i) If any 6-minute average opacity reading in the most recent 
performance test exceeds half the applicable opacity limit, a new 
performance test must be conducted within 90 operating days of the date 
that the previous performance test was required to be completed.
    (ii) If all 6-minute average opacity readings in the most recent 
performance test are equal to or less than half the applicable opacity 
limit, a new performance test must be conducted within 12 calendar 
months of the date that the previous performance test was required to 
be completed.
    (iii) An owner or operator of an affected facility continuously 
monitoring scrubber parameters as specified in Sec.  60.256(b)(2) is 
exempt from the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) if 
opacity performance tests are conducted concurrently with (or within a 
60-minute period of) PM performance tests.
    (c) If any affected coal processing and conveying equipment (e.g., 
breakers, crushers, screens, conveying systems), coal storage systems, 
or coal transfer and loading systems that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after April 28, 2008, are enclosed in a 
building, and emissions from the building do not exceed any of the 
standards in Sec.  60.254 that apply to the affected facility, then the 
facility shall be deemed to be in compliance with such standards.
    (d) An owner or operator of an affected facility (other than a 
thermal dryer) that commenced construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after April 28, 2008, is subject to a PM emission standard 
and uses a control device with a design controlled potential PM 
emissions rate of 1.0 Mg (1.1 tons) per year or less is exempted from 
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section 
provided that the owner or operator meets all of the conditions 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. This 
exemption does not apply to thermal dryers.
    (1) PM emissions, as determined by the most recent performance 
test, are less than or equal to the applicable limit,
    (2) The control device manufacturer's recommended maintenance 
procedures are followed, and
    (3) All 6-minute average opacity readings from the most recent 
performance test are equal to or less than half the applicable opacity 
limit or the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (e) or (f) of this 
section are followed.
    (e) For an owner or operator of a group of up to five of the same 
type of affected facilities that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after April 28, 2008, that are subject 
to PM emissions standards and use identical control devices, the 
Administrator or delegated authority may allow the owner or operator to 
use a single PM performance test for one of the affected control 
devices to demonstrate that the group of affected facilities is in 
compliance with the applicable emissions standards provided that the 
owner or operator meets all of the conditions specified in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) PM emissions from the most recent performance test for each 
individual affected facility are 90 percent or less of the applicable 
PM standard;
    (2) The manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures are 
followed for each control device; and
    (3) A performance test is conducted on each affected facility at 
least once every 5 calendar years.
    (f) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, an owner or operator of an affected facility 
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after 
April 28, 2008, may elect to comply with the requirements in paragraph 
(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section.
    (1) Monitor visible emissions from each affected facility according 
to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Conduct one daily 15-second observation each operating day for 
each affected facility (during normal operation) when the coal 
preparation and processing plant is in operation. Each observation must 
be recorded as either visible emissions observed or no visible 
emissions observed. Each observer determining the presence of visible 
emissions must meet the training requirements specified in Sec.  2.3 of 
Method 22 of appendix A-7 of this part. If visible emissions are 
observed during any 15-second observation, the owner or operator must 
adjust the operation of the affected facility and demonstrate within 24 
hours that no visible emissions are observed from the affected 
facility. If visible emissions are observed, a Method 9, of appendix A-
4 of this part, performance test must be conducted within 45 operating 
days.
    (ii) Conduct monthly visual observations of all process and control 
equipment. If any deficiencies are observed, the necessary maintenance 
must be performed as expeditiously as possible.
    (iii) Conduct a performance test using Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 
this part at least once every 5 calendar years for each affected 
facility.
    (2) Prepare a written site-specific monitoring plan for a digital 
opacity compliance system for approval by the Administrator or 
delegated authority. The plan shall require observations of at least 
one digital image every 15 seconds for 10-minute periods (during normal 
operation) every operating day. An approvable monitoring plan must 
include a demonstration that the occurrences of visible emissions are 
not in excess of 5 percent of the observation period. For reference 
purposes in preparing the monitoring plan, see OAQPS ``Determination of 
Visible Emission Opacity from Stationary Sources Using Computer-Based 
Photographic Analysis Systems.'' This document is available from the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality 
and Planning Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division; 
Measurement Group (D243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This 
document is also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 
under Emission Measurement Center Preliminary Methods. The monitoring 
plan approved by the Administrator or delegated authority shall be 
implemented by the owner or operator.
    (g) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, an owner or operator of an affected facility 
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after 
April 28, 2008, subject to a visible emissions standard under this 
subpart may install, operate, and maintain a continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS). Each COMS used to comply with provisions of 
this subpart must be installed, calibrated, maintained, and 
continuously operated

[[Page 51982]]

according to the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) The COMS must meet Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix B.
    (2) The COMS must comply with the quality assurance requirements in 
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) The owner or operator must automatically (intrinsic to the 
opacity monitor) check the zero and upscale (span) calibration drifts 
at least once daily. For particular COMS, the acceptable range of zero 
and upscale calibration materials is as defined in the applicable 
version of Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (ii) The owner or operator must adjust the zero and span whenever 
the 24-hour zero drift or 24-hour span drift exceeds 4 percent opacity. 
The COMS must allow for the amount of excess zero and span drift 
measured at the 24-hour interval checks to be recorded and quantified. 
The optical surfaces exposed to the effluent gases must be cleaned 
prior to performing the zero and span drift adjustments, except for 
systems using automatic zero adjustments. For systems using automatic 
zero adjustments, the optical surfaces must be cleaned when the 
cumulative automatic zero compensation exceeds 4 percent opacity.
    (iii) The owner or operator must apply a method for producing a 
simulated zero opacity condition and an upscale (span) opacity 
condition using a certified neutral density filter or other related 
technique to produce a known obscuration of the light beam. All 
procedures applied must provide a system check of the analyzer internal 
optical surfaces and all electronic circuitry including the lamp and 
photodetector assembly.
    (iv) Except during periods of system breakdowns, repairs, 
calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, the COMS must be in 
continuous operation and must complete a minimum of one cycle of 
sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one 
cycle of data recording for each successive 6-minute period.
    (v) The owner or operator must reduce all data from the COMS to 6-
minute averages. Six-minute opacity averages must be calculated from 36 
or more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period. Data 
recorded during periods of system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 
checks, and zero and span adjustments must not be included in the data 
averages. An arithmetic or integrated average of all data may be used.
    (h) The owner or operator of each affected coal truck dump 
operation that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after April 28, 2008, must meet the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Conduct an initial performance test using Method 9 of appendix 
A-4 of this part according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
and(ii).
    (i) Opacity readings shall be taken during the duration of three 
separate truck dump events. Each truck dump event commences when the 
truck bed begins to elevate and concludes when the truck bed returns to 
a horizontal position.
    (ii) Compliance with the applicable opacity limit is determined by 
averaging all 15-second opacity readings made during the duration of 
three separate truck dump events.
    (2) Conduct monthly visual observations of all process and control 
equipment. If any deficiencies are observed, the necessary maintenance 
must be performed as expeditiously as possible.
    (3) Conduct a performance test using Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 
this part at least once every 5 calendar years for each affected 
facility.


Sec.  60.256  Continuous monitoring requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of each affected facility constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified on or before April 28, 2008, must meet the 
monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section, as applicable to the affected facility.
    (1) The owner or operator of any thermal dryer shall install, 
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate monitoring devices as 
follows:
    (i) A monitoring device for the measurement of the temperature of 
the gas stream at the exit of the thermal dryer on a continuous basis. 
The monitoring device is to be certified by the manufacturer to be 
accurate within 1.7[deg]C (3[deg]F).
    (ii) For affected facilities that use wet scrubber emission control 
equipment:
    (A) A monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the 
pressure loss through the venturi constriction of the control 
equipment. The monitoring device is to be certified by the manufacturer 
to be accurate within 1 inch water gauge.
    (B) A monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the water 
supply pressure to the control equipment. The monitoring device is to 
be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 5 
percent of design water supply pressure. The pressure sensor or tap 
must be located close to the water discharge point. The Administrator 
shall have discretion to grant requests for approval of alternative 
monitoring locations.
    (2) All monitoring devices under paragraph (a) of this section are 
to be recalibrated annually in accordance with procedures under Sec.  
60.13(b).
    (b) The owner or operator of each affected facility constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, that has one or more 
mechanical vents must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously 
operate the monitoring devices specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3) of this section, as applicable to the mechanical vent and any 
control device installed on the vent.
    (1) For mechanical vents with fabric filters (baghouses) with 
design controlled potential PM emissions rates of 25 Mg (28 tons) per 
year or more, a bag leak detection system according to the requirements 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) For mechanical vents with wet scrubbers, monitoring devices 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (i) A monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the 
pressure loss through the venturi constriction of the control 
equipment. The monitoring device is to be certified by the manufacturer 
to be accurate within 1 inch water gauge.
    (ii) A monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the 
water supply flow rate to the control equipment. The monitoring device 
is to be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 5 percent of design water supply flow rate.
    (iii) A monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the pH 
of the wet scrubber liquid. The monitoring device is to be certified by 
the manufacturer to be accurate within 5 percent of design 
pH.
    (iv) An average value for each monitoring parameter must be 
determined during each performance test. Each monitoring parameter must 
then be maintained within 10 percent of the value established during 
the most recent performance test on an operating day average basis.
    (3) For mechanical vents with control equipment other than wet 
scrubbers, a monitoring device for the continuous measurement of the 
reagent injection flow rate to the control equipment, as applicable. 
The monitoring device is to be certified by the manufacturer to be 
accurate within 5 percent of design injection flow rate. An 
average reagent

[[Page 51983]]

injection flow rate value must be determined during each performance 
test. The reagent injection flow rate must then be maintained within 10 
percent of the value established during the most recent performance 
test on an operating day average basis.
    (c) Each bag leak detection system used to comply with provisions 
of this subpart must be installed, calibrated, maintained, and 
continuously operated according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) (0.00044 grains 
per actual cubic foot (gr/acf)) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record 
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other 
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative 
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located 
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, 
the owner or operator must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output 
by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the 
device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator must not 
adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time 
without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except 
as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the 
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal 
effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the 
procedures identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required by 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (vii) The owner or operator must install the bag leak detection 
sensor downstream of the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) The owner or operator must develop and submit to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for approval a site-specific 
monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system. This plan must be 
submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority 30 days prior to 
startup of the affected facility. The owner or operator must operate 
and maintain the bag leak detection system according to the site-
specific monitoring plan at all times. Each monitoring plan must 
describe the items in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this 
section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, 
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory 
list;
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored; and
    (vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (c)(3) 
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the 
Administrator or delegated authority may allow the owner and operator 
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an 
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this 
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately 
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested 
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as 
practicable.
    (3) For each bag leak detection system, the owner or operator must 
initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour 
of the alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this 
section, the owner or operator must alleviate the cause of the alarm 
within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 
necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the 
following:
    (i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
PM emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.


Sec.  60.257  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the 
applicable opacity standards as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) Method 9 of appendix A-4 of this part and the procedures in 
Sec.  60.11 must be used to determine opacity, with the exceptions 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii).
    (i) The duration of the Method 9 of appendix A-4 of this part 
performance test shall be 1 hour (ten 6-minute averages).
    (ii) If, during the initial 30 minutes of the observation of a 
Method 9 of appendix A-4 of this part performance test, all of the 6-
minute average opacity readings are less than or equal to half the 
applicable opacity limit, then the observation period may be reduced 
from 1 hour to 30 minutes.
    (2) To determine opacity for fugitive coal dust emissions sources, 
the additional requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through 
(iii) must be used.
    (i) The minimum distance between the observer and the emission 
source shall be 5.0 meters (16 feet), and the sun shall be oriented in 
the 140-degree sector of the back.
    (ii) The observer shall select a position that minimizes 
interference from other fugitive coal dust emissions sources and make 
observations such that the line of vision is approximately 
perpendicular to the plume and wind direction.
    (iii) The observer shall make opacity observations at the point of 
greatest opacity in that portion of the plume where condensed water 
vapor is not present. Water vapor is not considered a visible emission.
    (3) A visible emissions observer may conduct visible emission 
observations for up to three fugitive, stack, or vent emission points 
within a 15-second interval if the following conditions specified in 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section are met.
    (i) No more than three emissions points may be read concurrently.
    (ii) All three emissions points must be within a 70 degree viewing 
sector or angle in front of the observer such that

[[Page 51984]]

the proper sun position can be maintained for all three points.
    (iii) If an opacity reading for any one of the three emissions 
points is within 5 percent opacity from the applicable standard 
(excluding readings of zero opacity), then the observer must stop 
taking readings for the other two points and continue reading just that 
single point.
    (b) The owner or operator must conduct all performance tests 
required by Sec.  60.8 to demonstrate compliance with the applicable 
emissions standards specified in Sec.  60.252 according to the 
requirements in Sec.  60.8 using the applicable test methods and 
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to 
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in 
each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 
control device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no control 
device is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A-4 of this part 
shall be used to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used 
to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The owner or 
operator may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) as an alternative 
to Method 3B of appendix A-2 of this part.
    (4) Method 4 of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to 
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) Method 5, 5B or 5D of appendix A-4 of this part or Method 17 of 
appendix A-7 of this part shall be used to determine the PM 
concentration as follows:
    (i) The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall be at 
least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf). Sampling shall begin no less 
than 30 minutes after startup and shall terminate before shutdown 
procedures begin. A minimum of three valid test runs are needed to 
comprise a PM performance test.
    (ii) Method 5 of appendix A of this part shall be used only to test 
emissions from affected facilities without wet flue gas desulfurization 
(FGD) systems.
    (iii) Method 5B of appendix A of this part is to be used only after 
wet FGD systems.
    (iv) Method 5D of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used for 
positive pressure fabric filters and other similar applications (e.g., 
stub stacks and roof vents).
    (v) Method 17 of appendix A-6 of this part may be used at 
facilities with or without wet scrubber systems provided the stack gas 
temperature does not exceed a temperature of 160 [deg] C (320 [deg] F). 
The procedures of sections 8.1 and 11.1 of Method 5B of appendix A-3 of 
this part may be used in Method 17 of appendix A-6 of this part only if 
it is used after a wet FGD system. Do not use Method 17 of appendix A-6 
of this part after wet FGD systems if the effluent is saturated or 
laden with water droplets.
    (6) Method 6, 6A, or 6C of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used 
to determine the SO2 concentration. A minimum of three valid 
test runs are needed to comprise an SO2 performance test.
    (7) Method 7 or 7E of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to 
determine the NOX concentration. A minimum of three valid 
test runs are needed to comprise an NOx performance test.
    (8) Method 10 of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to 
determine the CO concentration. A minimum of three valid test runs are 
needed to comprise a CO performance test. CO performance tests are 
conducted concurrently (or within a 60-minute period) with 
NOX performance tests.


Sec.  60.258  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) The owner or operator of a coal preparation and processing 
plant that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after April 28, 2008, shall maintain in a logbook (written or 
electronic) on-site and make it available upon request. The logbook 
shall record the following:
    (1) The manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures and the 
date and time of any maintenance and inspection activities and the 
results of those activities. Any variance from manufacturer 
recommendation, if any, shall be noted.
    (2) The date and time of periodic coal preparation and processing 
plant visual observations, noting those sources with visible emissions 
along with corrective actions taken to reduce visible emissions. 
Results from the actions shall be noted.
    (3) The amount and type of coal processed each calendar month.
    (4) The amount of chemical stabilizer or water purchased for use in 
the coal preparation and processing plant.
    (5) Monthly certification that the dust suppressant systems were 
operational when any coal was processed and that manufacturer's 
recommendations were followed for all control systems. Any variance 
from the manufacturer's recommendations, if any, shall be noted.
    (6) Monthly certification that the fugitive coal dust emissions 
control plan was implemented as described. Any variance from the plan, 
if any, shall be noted. A copy of the applicable fugitive coal dust 
emissions control plan and any letters from the Administrator providing 
approval of any alternative control measures shall be maintained with 
the logbook. Any actions, e.g. objections, to the plan and any actions 
relative to the alternative control measures, e.g. approvals, shall be 
noted in the logbook as well.
    (7) For each bag leak detection system, the owner or operator must 
keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
    (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including 
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection 
system settings, and the final bag leak detection settings; and
    (iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, 
the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were 
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, 
the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether 
the cause of the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
    (8) A copy of any applicable monitoring plan for a digital opacity 
compliance system and monthly certification that the plan was 
implemented as described. Any variance from plan, if any, shall be 
noted.
    (9) During a performance test of a wet scrubber, and each operating 
day thereafter, the owner or operator shall record the measurements of 
the scrubber pressure loss, water supply flow rate, and pH of the wet 
scrubber liquid.
    (10) During a performance test of control equipment other than a 
wet scrubber, and each operating day thereafter, the owner or operator 
shall record the measurements of the reagent injection flow rate, as 
applicable.
    (b) For the purpose of reports required under section 60.7(c), any 
owner operator subject to the provisions of this subpart also shall 
report semiannually periods of excess emissions as follow:
    (1) The owner or operator of an affected facility with a wet 
scrubber shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator or 
delegated authority of occurrences when the measurements of the 
scrubber pressure loss, water supply flow rate, or pH of the wet 
scrubber liquid vary by more than 10 percent

[[Page 51985]]

from the average determined during the most recent performance test.
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected facility with control 
equipment other than a wet scrubber shall submit semiannual reports to 
the Administrator or delegated authority of occurrences when the 
measurements of the reagent injection flow rate, as applicable, vary by 
more than 10 percent from the average determined during the most recent 
performance test.
    (3) All 6-minute average opacities that exceed the applicable 
standard.
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the 
results of initial performance tests to the Administrator or delegated 
authority, consistent with the provisions of section 60.8. The owner or 
operator who elects to comply with the reduced performance testing 
provisions of sections 60.255(c) or (d) shall include in the 
performance test report identification of each affected facility that 
will be subject to the reduced testing. The owner or operator electing 
to comply with section 60.255(d) shall also include information which 
demonstrates that the control devices are identical.
    (d) After July 1, 2011, within 60 days after the date of completing 
each performance evaluation conducted to demonstrate compliance with 
this subpart, the owner or operator of the affected facility must 
submit the test data to EPA by successfully entering the data 
electronically into EPA's WebFIRE data base available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. For performance tests 
that cannot be entered into WebFIRE (i.e., Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 
this part opacity performance tests) the owner or operator of the 
affected facility must mail a summary copy to United States 
Environmental Protection Agency; Energy Strategies Group; 109 TW 
Alexander DR; mail code: D243-01; RTP, NC 27711.

[FR Doc. E9-23783 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P