[Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22901-22913]
[DOCID:fr28ap08-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260; FRL-8556-6]
RIN 2060-AO57

Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
EPA has reviewed the emissions limits in the standards of performance
for coal preparation plants which were promulgated January 15, 1976.
This action presents the results of EPA's review and proposes
amendments to limits for coal preparation plants consistent with those
results. Specifically, we are proposing to tighten and add additional
particulate matter (PM) emissions limits for sources constructed after
April 28, 2008. In addition, we are proposing to clarify the procedures
used to measure emissions from coal preparation plants and add new
monitoring requirements for sources constructed after April 28, 2008.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2008.
If anyone contacts EPA by May 8, 2008 requesting to speak at a public
hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on May 13, 2008. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before May 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     By Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. EPA, Mail Code 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments
on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0260, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room
3334, Washington, DC, 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0260. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket EPA/DC, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy
Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic mail (e-mail) address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially affected by this proposed
action include, but are not limited to, the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
             Category               NAICS \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.
                                        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
                                        921150   electric utility steam
                                                 generating units owned
                                                 by municipalities.
                                                 Fossil fuel-fired
                                                 electric steam
                                                 generating units in
                                                 Indian Country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. This table lists categories of entities that may have
coal preparation plants regulated by this proposed rule. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by the proposed rule, you should
examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  60.250 and the definitions
in Sec.  60.251. If you have any questions regarding the applicability
of the proposed rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    WorldWide Web (WWW). Following the Administrator's signature, a
copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the Technology
Transfer Network's (TTN) 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.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held
at 10 a.m. at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina or at an alternate site nearby. Contact Mr. Christian Fellner
at<PHONE_NUMBER> to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public
hearing, to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the
hearing location.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    A. Applicability
    B. PM Emission Limit
    C. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements
    D. Additional Proposed Amendments
III. Rational for the Proposed Amendments
    A. Determination of Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT)
    B. Selection of Thermal Dryer PM Emission Limit
    C. Selection of Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning PM Emission Limit
    D. Selection of Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal
Storage Systems, and Transfer and Loading System PM and Opacity
Limits
    E. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions
V. Summary of Costs, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
VI. Request for Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paper 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

I. Background

    New source performance standards (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 at numerous industries by
assuring cost-effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed,
and modified sources.
    CAA section 111 requires that 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). CAA section
111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to periodically review and revise the
standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect improvements in
methods for reducing emissions.
    The current NSPS for coal preparation plants are contained in 40
CFR part 60, subpart Y, and were promulgated in the Federal Register on
January 15, 1976 (41 FR 2232). Subpart Y is 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. 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 03, 1989 (54 FR
13384). EPA did not make changes to the NSPS as a result of these
reviews.

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, to revise
emissions limits and monitoring requirements for affected facilities
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008 at coal
preparation plants processing more than 181 Mg (200 tons) of coal per
day. We are also proposing to add provisions to subpart Y to clarify
procedures for monitoring opacity at facilities presently subject to
subpart Y. A summary of the proposed substantive amendments is
presented below.

A. Applicability

    Subpart Y presently applies to the following affected facilities
located at coal preparation plants which process more than 181 Mg (200
tons) of coal per day: Thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-cleaning
equipment (air tables), coal processing and conveying equipment
(including breakers and crushers), coal storage systems, and transfer
and

loading systems. The terms ``thermal dryer'' and ``pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment'' are defined to include only facilities that
process bituminous coal and ``Coal storage system'' is defined to
exclude open storage piles. We are proposing not to amend the
designation of affected facilities or the definitions of thermal dryer,
pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment, coal processing and conveying
equipment, coal storage system, or transfer and loading system.

B. PM Emission Limit

    For thermal dryers constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
April 28, 2008, we are proposing to revise the PM emission limit to
0.046 grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.020 grains per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). For pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008, we are
proposing to revise the PM emissions limit to 0.011 g/dscm (0.0050 gr/
dscf) and the opacity limit to 5 percent. For coal processing and
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading
systems that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification
after April 28, 2008, we are proposing to revise the opacity limit to 5
percent. Finally, for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems, and transfer and loading systems processing coals
other than bituminous coals that commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 28, 2008 or were modified after April 28,
2008 and are enclosed, we are proposing to require that all PM
emissions be vented to a stack and that emissions from the stack meet a
PM standard of 0.011 g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf).

C. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements

    We are proposing to clarify the procedures that should be used by
sources covered by subpart Y to monitor opacity. We are also proposing
to require owners/operators of thermal dryers and pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April
28, 2008 to either install and operate a PM continuous emissions
monitoring system (PM CEMS) or to conduct annual PM performance tests.
In addition, we are proposing to require owners/operators of pneumatic
coal-cleaning equipment or thermal dryers using fabric filters
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008 not using
PM CEMS to install a bag leak detection system. Finally, we are
proposing to eliminate the opacity limit for owners/operators of
affected facilities that properly install and continuously operate a PM
CEMS.
    To monitor the opacity at coal processing and conveying equipment,
coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems constructed,
modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008, owner/operators of
affected facilities shall conduct EPA Test Method 22, Appendix A-7, 40
CFR part 60, observations each calendar month that the coal preparation
plant operates. If the results of the Method 22 observations indicate
the presence of visible emissions for more than 5 percent of the
observation period, the owner/operator would be required to conduct an
EPA Test Method 9, Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60, performance test on
that affected facility within 24 hours. The data from the Method 9 test
would be compared to the applicable opacity limit.
    Finally, we are proposing to add specific recordkeeping
requirements to subpart Y that would require the owner/operator of an
affected facility that commenced construction, reconstruction, or
modification after April 28, 2008 to maintain a logbook that records
the visual opacity observations, the amount of chemical stabilizer or
water purchased to control PM emissions, and the amount and ranks of
coal processed each month.

D. Additional Proposed Amendments

    We are proposing to add a definition for a bag leak detection
system. In addition, we are proposing to amend the definitions of
bituminous coal and coal to include the most recent ASTM test
procedures. Finally, for a venturi scrubber, liquid flow rate is a
better indicator of performance then liquid pressure monitoring, and we
are proposing to add flow rate monitoring as an alternative to pressure
monitoring. These changes update the definitions sections and are only
intended to clarify the monitoring provisions, but do not substantively
change the standards that apply to sources constructed before April 28,
2008.

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. Determination of Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT)

    We reviewed air permits for coal handling/processing/preparation/
cleaning (process type 90.011) in the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLC) clearinghouse to determine BDT for existing coal preparation
plants. In this review, we did not identify any emerging pollution
prevention measures or PM control technologies at coal mines, electric
power plants, or other industrial facilities. Therefore, we assumed
that the following PM controls can be used on thermal dryers and
pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment: A centrifugal (cyclone) collector,
followed by a venturi scrubber and fabric filter respectively. Based on
this review, we also concluded that the following PM controls can be
used at coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems,
and transfer and loading systems at coal preparation plants: Enclosures
in conjunction with either wet or chemical suppression or venting to a
fabric filter.

B. Selection of Thermal Dryer PM Emission Limit

    When developing the proposed standards, we concluded that it is
appropriate to use a fuel-neutral approach. The fuel-neutral principle
dictates that emission standards should be as neutral as possible
between clean fuels (fuels that have inherently low emissions) and
other fuels. We are proposing to adopt this approach in order to set a
nationwide emission standard that can be achieved by all new facilities
in this source category, including facilities that do not have long-
term access to clean fuels at a reasonable cost. In addition, we have
concluded that the most bituminous coal mines are located away from
major population centers and are not connected to the natural gas
distribution system and that the use of natural gas as the thermal
dryer fuel is not an option. Therefore, we concluded that the thermal
dryer limit should be based on the combustion of coal.
    A review of EPA's RBLC database over the past decade indicated that
three new permits have been granted for new and modified coal-fired
thermal dryers located at coal mines. The first permit was granted to
the Island Creek coal preparation plant to modify an existing thermal
dryer. The other two permits were granted to the Buchanan coal
preparation plant. One was to modify an existing thermal dryer, and the
other was to construct a new thermal dryer. All three coal-fired
thermal dryers have PM permit limits of 0.025 gr/dscf; however, the new
thermal dryer was never constructed at the Buchanan unit. To gather
additional data, EPA reviewed permits for thermal dryers built more
than 10 years ago to identify permit conditions that were more
stringent than the existing NSPS. One of the identified plants was
Mettiki general coal preparation plant, which had a permit limit of
0.020 gr/dscf. EPA reviewed PM performance test from

2000 from the Metikki facility, 1997 data from the Island Creek
facility, and PM and opacity performance test data from 2003 and 2006
from the modified Buchanan thermal dryer. The average PM performance
test results were 0.013, 0.019, 0.020, and 0.018 gr/dscf, respectively.
The maximum opacity readings for the 2003 and 2006 performance tests at
the Buchanan plant were 10 and 20 percent, respectively. We selected
0.020 gr/dscf as the proposed PM limit because this level is currently
being achieved by the thermal dryer located at the three facilities
subject to the most stringent PM limits, and because we did not
identify any emerging pollution prevention or emission control
technologies. In addition, we have concluded that the existing opacity
limit of 20 percent is appropriate since the opacity data from the
Buchanan plant demonstrates that compliance with the PM mass emission
limit is possible at an opacity of 20 percent and has decided not to
revise the limit.
    We are not proposing to set separate limits for condensable PM,
PM2.5, or PM10 emissions. Based on AP-42 emission factors, condensable
PM accounts for only approximately 1 percent of total PM emissions from
a fluidized bed dryer. Based on AP-42 emissions factors, a high
efficiency venturi scrubber controls 75 percent of condensable PM, and
99 percent of the total filterable PM. PM2.5 accounts for approximately
15 percent of filterable PM emissions from a fluidized bed dryer. Even
though the collection efficiency for a venturi scrubber decreases with
decreasing PM size, we have concluded that the improvements in design
required to comply with the amended PM standard will result in 50
percent collection efficiency of submicron particles. Therefore, we
concluded that setting a total filterable PM limit is sufficient.
Further, at this time we do not have sufficient performance test data
on condensable PM or PM2.5 emissions from thermal dryers to determine
what limits would be reasonable. Finally, although we acknowledge that
the addition of controls after the high efficiency venturi scrubber
could result in lower condensable and PM2.5 emissions, we do not have
any way to estimate the performance of such controls to conduct a cost
analysis. Therefore we cannot conclude at this time that such controls
would constitute the best demonstrated technology for this source
category.

C. Selection of Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning Equipment PM Emission Limit

    We are proposing to revise the PM and opacity limits that would
apply to pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed, modified, or
reconstructed after April 28, 2008. A review of the RBLC database
indicated that no new pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment has been
permitted in the past decade. We concluded, however, that performance
from baghouses on coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
systems, and transfer and loading systems is representative of the
performance that would be expected of new pneumatic coal-cleaning
equipment. Therefore, we determined that the level of control that
reflects the BDT for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems, and transfer and loading systems standards also
reflects the BDT for pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment. The following
section describes how the proposed PM and opacity standards for these
affected facilities were developed.

D. Selection of Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage
Systems, and Transfer and Loading System PM and Opacity Limits

    To determine the best demonstrated technology for coal processing
and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading
systems, we reviewed control measures currently in use at coal
preparation plants to reduce emissions from coal processing and
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading
systems. This review indicated that most new facilities use either
partial or total enclosures in conjunction with either wet or chemical
suppression or venting to a baghouse. However, no single PM control
scheme works for all coal ranks throughout the country. Bituminous
coals typically have high surface moisture contents and low
uncontrolled PM emissions. Facilities currently utilizing bituminous
coal typically use enclosures with either wet suppression or chemical
suppression to control PM emissions from the various processing and
handling operations at a coal preparation plant. Low rank coals
(subbituminous and lignite) tend to have low surface moisture and
higher uncontrolled PM emissions, but the use of wet suppression can
significantly decrease the coal's heating value. In addition, water
resources are often limited in the regions where low rank coals are
processed. Consequently, facilities currently utilizing low rank coals
typically use enclosures and controls other than wet suppression (e.g.,
chemical sprays, fogging systems, or venting to a fabric filter) to
control PM emissions from the various processing and handling
operations at a coal preparation plant.
    We developed uncontrolled emission rates for coal processing and
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading
systems using emissions information from three references (i.e., EPA's
AP-42 emission factors, the CHEER workshop proceedings, and the
Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining). We are not aware of
any additional sources of information for uncontrolled emissions rates
for these operations and, for the purposes of this analysis, we
selected the uncontrolled emissions factor for each coal preparation
operation based on the information contained in these references. We
also selected default percent control efficiencies for different
control devices based on information contained in these references.
Using the default uncontrolled emission rates and the default control
efficiencies, we determined the cost effectiveness of the various
control options.
    We developed six model coal preparation plants to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of the control options. The model plants are located at a
bituminous coal mine, a subbituminous coal mine, an electric utility
steam generating unit, a coke production facility, a cement
manufacturing facility, and an industrial site. For each model coal
preparation plant, we compared the use of chemical suppressants to
venting to a fabric filter because these are the options with the
highest level of control. Based on an analysis of these model coal
preparation plants, we drew the following conclusions regarding the BDT
for affected facilities at these plants. Control technologies and
costs, and therefore BDT, differ depending on the type of coal
processed.
    For coal preparation plants processing bituminous coal at end-user
locations (the electric utility steam generating unit, the coke
production facility, the cement manufacturing facility, and the
industrial site), we concluded that requiring fabric filters instead of
using chemical suppressants would result in an annual reduction of 7
tons of PM, but cost an additional $640,000 annually. In addition, the
incremental benefit and cost of fabric filters at a bituminous mine
compared to application of chemical suppressants is a reduction of an
additional 33 tons of PM, but the annual cost is an additional
$200,000. Due to these high costs, we concluded that fabric filters are
not BDT for any

coal preparation plant processing bituminous coal. Therefore, BDT for
affected facilities at coal preparation plants processing bituminous
coal is the use of enclosures and chemical suppression.
    In contrast, for coal preparation plants processing coals other
than bituminous coal (the subbituminous mine), we determined that
fabric filters do constitute BDT. The high uncontrolled PM emissions of
subbituminous coal results in higher chemical costs and more cost
effective fabric filters. The cost of a baghouse is $580,000 less than
the use of chemicals at a subbituminous mine; the higher control
efficiency of fabric filters results in a 230 ton annual decrease in PM
emissions. Therefore, since fabric filters provide the highest level of
control and are cost effective, they are considered BDT. Lignite has
similar uncontrolled PM emissions as subbituminous coal and fabric
filters are also considered BDT for coal preparation plants processing
lignite.
    We determined that BDT for new and reconstructed coal preparation
plants processing coals other than bituminous coal is enclosure of the
affected facilities and venting of emissions through a stack equipped
with fabric filters. However, for modified facilities, we determined
that enclosure is not BDT. Modified facilities could face technical
challenges due to the layout of existing equipment. Therefore, BDT for
these facilities is enclosure and venting through a stack equipped with
fabric filters only if the affected facility was already enclosed
before the modification. For modified facilities at coal preparation
plants processing coal other than bituminous coal that are not enclosed
prior to the modification BDT is the use of chemical suppressants. A
detailed explanation of the emission factors and cost analysis is
available in the docket.
    In addition, we analyzed whether it was appropriate to set a mass
PM or an opacity standard for coal processing and conveying equipment,
coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems. As discussed
above, we concluded that BDT was enclosure and venting to a stack
equipped with fabric filters only for new or reconstructed affected
facilities that process coals other than bituminous coals, and modified
affected facilities that are enclosed and process coals other than
bituminous coals. BDT for processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems, and transfer and loading systems processing bituminous
coal and unenclosed modified processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems, and transfer and loading systems processing coals
other than bituminous coal was determined to be enclosure and the use
of chemical suppression. Because it is not technically difficult or
economically prohibitive to measure both PM emissions and opacity from
sources venting emissions through a stack, we concluded that it was
appropriate to set both a PM and opacity standard for new or
reconstructed affected facilities that process coals other than
bituminous coals, and modified affected facilities that are enclosed
and process coals other than bituminous coals. For all other coal
processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer
and loading systems, we concluded that, at this time, it is appropriate
to continue to use only an opacity standard. While measuring emissions
of uncontrolled and controlled fugitive PM emissions from coal
preparation facilities is technically possible, due to economic
limitations it is often not presently practicable to measure the mass
of PM emissions for operations that are not vented to a stack.
Therefore, we are not proposing to set a separate PM standard for these
affected facilities.
    To identify the opacity standard that reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through the application of the best
demonstrated technology, we reviewed the RBLC database for opacity
conditions applied in permits for coal handling facilities. Thirty-
eight permits had opacity conditions, all for baghouses. Five of these
permit conditions repeat the existing NSPS limit of 20 percent opacity,
1 was at 10 percent, and the remaining 32 were at 5 percent opacity or
less. Based on this, we concluded that 5 percent opacity is BDT for a
baghouse at a coal preparation plant. To further evaluate the actual
performance of fabric filters, we conducted a review of test reports
collected in support of the subpart OOO (non-metallic mineral
processing facilities) review. These data were recently collected for
review of subpart OOO, 40 CFR part 60, and we concluded the results are
representative of results that would be expected from baghouses located
at coal preparation plants since the size distribution and total mass
of PM emissions are similar. We found that the results from all 102
relevant opacity performance tests on baghouses from the review showed
maximum opacity readings of 5 percent or less.
    To determine the appropriate opacity for affected facilities that
do not vent PM emissions through a stack, we reviewed 383 Method 9
performance tests on facilities processing non-metallic minerals and
using wet suppression (water-mixed surfactant sprays) to control
fugitive dust. Again, we concluded that this data is comparable to what
could be expected from non-enclosed affected facilities at a coal
preparation plant since the size distribution and total uncontrolled PM
emissions are similar for affected facilities covered by both subparts.
None of the performance tests resulted in any 6-minute opacity readings
in excess of 10 percent, and 91 percent of the performance tests had
opacity readings of 5 percent or less. Since the assumed BDT for coal
preparation plants processing bituminous coal is the use of enclosures
and chemical suppressants, which is superior to standard wet
suppression technology, we have concluded that an opacity limit of 5
percent is appropriate for new, modified, and reconstructed coal
processing equipment. Even though many of the opacity readings are
zero, opacity is measured in 5 percent increments. If the observer sees
anything at all the minimum opacity they can report is 5 percent. We
have concluded that a zero opacity limit is not appropriate since then
even the smallest amount of visible emissions for any period would be
an excess emission.
    We concluded that a PM limit of 0.011 g/dcsm (0.0050 gr/dcsf)
reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the BDT at new or reconstructed affected facilities that
process coals other than bituminous coals, and modified affected
facilities that are enclosed and process coals other than bituminous
coals. To determine what PM limit would be achievable through the
application of best demonstrated technology at affected facilities
processing coals other than bituminous coal, we reviewed data from the
RBLC over the past decade for permit conditions for recent baghouses at
coal handling facilities. Twenty-four of the 47 baghouse permits that
list the gr/dscf stack limit were at 0.0050 gr/dscf or less, 22 were
between 0.0050 and 0.010 gr/dscf, and 1 was above 0.010 gr/dscf. Since
the cost difference in designing a baghouse to meet either 0.010 or
0.0050 gr/dscf is insignificant and the majority of new permits require
stack limits of 0.0050 gr/dscf, EPA concluded that 0.0050 gr/dscf is
BDT for a baghouse at a coal preparation plant. To further evaluate the
actual performance of fabric filters, we reviewed performance test data
from baghouses installed at affected facilities subject to subpart OOO.
These data were recently

collected for review of subpart OOO, and we concluded the results are
representative of results that would be expected from baghouses located
at coal preparation plants. One important distinction is that the
majority of baghouses that submitted performance test data for the
subpart OOO review had design emissions rates of 0.010 gr/dscf or
higher. Of the 143 performance test results, 71 percent had results of
0.0050 gr/dscf or less and 87 percent had results of 0.010 gr/dscf or
less. Based on this review, we selected a PM limit of 0.0050 gr/dscf of
filterable PM for new or reconstructed affected facilities that process
coals other than bituminous coals, and modified affected facilities
that are enclosed and process coals other than bituminous coals because
it is achievable on a consistent basis for a baghouse designed to
achieve 0.0050 gr/dscf. For the same reasons, we also determined that a
PM limit of 0.0050 gr/dcsf represented the emissions limitation
achievable through the application of BDT at new, modified, and
reconstructed pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment. Even though some
individual PM performance test results are less then 0.0050 gr/dscf, we
have concluded that the permit limit and manufacturer guarantees have
an appropriate compliance margin built in. A detailed analysis of the
performance test data is available in the docket.
    We concluded that there are insignificant condensable PM emissions
from coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and
transfer and loading systems and, therefore, decided not to establish a
separate PM limit for condensable PM emissions.
    We also concluded that it was not appropriate to establish separate
PM2.5 or PM10 limits. Based on AP-42 emission factors, PM10 accounts
for approximately half of the total PM emissions from coal handling
operations and PM2.5 accounts for approximately 7 percent. We have
concluded that both fabric filters and chemical dust suppressants
control PM equally across the size distribution, and setting an overall
PM limit is sufficient to control both PM10 and PM2.5. Even if we were
to set a PM10 or PM2.5 limit, it would not result in any environmental
benefit, but would increase compliance costs due to testing and
reporting requirements. In addition, we do not have sufficient
performance test data to establish reasonable PM10 and PM2.5 limits
that could be achieved on a consistent basis.

E. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements

    We have concluded that it is appropriate to eliminate the opacity
limit for affected facilities that use a PM CEMS to monitor emissions.
For affected facilities at coal preparation plants, a PM CEMS will give
a more direct measurement of the pollutant of interest causing opacity
at these facilities (i.e., filterable PM) and provide data in units of
the standard. We are not proposing, however, to require all affected
facilities to install a PM CEMS, and the opacity standard will continue
to apply to all facilities without a PM CEMS. For those facilities that
elect not to install PM CEMS, and for those emissions at a source that
are not suitable for monitoring by PM CEMS, it is appropriate to retain
the opacity standard.
    For new thermal dryers and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment for
which a PM CEMS is not applied, we are requiring a bag leak detection
system. Bag leak detection systems that are based on electromagnetic or
other electric charge transfer measurement are sensitive to changes in
PM concentration and mass emissions rates. These devices are suitable
for detecting changes in PM emissions control that suggests potential
compliance problems in need of attention well before significant
deterioration in control device operation. Bag leak detection systems
in most applications act as early detection alarms but do not provide a
measure of actual PM emissions. For this reason, we are proposing to
retain the opacity standard for sources applying a bag leak detection
system.
    For monitoring PM emissions from coal processing and conveying
equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems, we
are proposing monthly Method 22 opacity tests. We recognize that there
is currently no readily available practical technology for continuously
monitoring opacity from sources that do not vent PM emissions to a
stack. Method 22 requires an observer, not necessarily certified as a
Method 9 observer, to monitor the subject process or area for any
visible emissions (i.e., not zero). For a period of time, this observer
records all instances and the duration of visible emissions. If the sum
of the duration of periods of visible emissions exceeds five percent of
the observation period, the source must conduct a Method 9 test to
establish compliance with the opacity limit.
    We are also proposing as an explicit alternative to Method 22
observations the use of a digital photographic technique for detecting
visible emissions. The proposed rule references an EPA preliminary
method entitled ``Determination of Visible Emission Opacity from
Stationary Sources Using Computer-Based Photographic Analysis Systems''
found at http://www.epa.gov/tnn/emc/prelim/pre-008.pdf. For this
option, the source owner prepares for approval a site-specific
monitoring plan based on this technology.
    To verify that proper inspections and maintenance procedures are
followed, we have concluded that it is necessary for the owner/operator
of an affected facility to maintain a logbook. Data in the logbook
would include the dates and results of all visual emission
observations, the amount of water and/or chemical stabilizer used each
month to control PM emissions, and the amount of coal processed each
month.

IV. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

    Existing affected facilities at coal preparation plants that are
modified or reconstructed would be subject to the applicable proposed
amendments. We have concluded that existing affected facilities that
are reconstructed and units that are modified should be able to achieve
the proposed limits. Therefore, we are not proposing any amendments to
how a facility would conduct the modification and reconstruction
analysis.

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

    In setting the standards, the CAA requires EPA to consider
alternative emission control approaches, taking into account the
estimated costs and benefits, as well as energy, solid waste, and other
effects. We request comment on whether we have identified the
appropriate alternatives and whether the proposed standards adequately
take into consideration the incremental effects in terms of emission
reductions, energy, and other effects of these alternatives. We will
consider the available information in developing the final rule.
    The costs and environmental, energy, and economic impacts are
expressed as incremental differences between the impacts of coal
preparation facilities complying with the proposed amendments and the
current common permitting authority requirements (i.e., baseline). We
used permit data and raw material use data to determine that new coal
preparation plants will be built at 2 bituminous mines, 2 subbituminous
mines, 1 coke production plant, 6 utility plants, 10 cement
manufacturing plants, and 1 industrial site over the next 5

years. However, the controls presently required by State permitting
authorities are equivalent to what would be required by the proposed
amendments, and the impacts of the proposed amendments will result in
limited environmental benefit or increase in control costs over the
next 5 years. Therefore, the primary impact resulting from the proposed
amendments to subpart Y for coal preparation facilities is a slight
increase in recordkeeping costs for new units subject to subpart Y.
    Compliance with the proposed standards would potentially increase
the quantity of coal dust collected by fabric filters over the baseline
levels. Depending on the practices used at a given coal preparation
plant site, the amended regulation would increase the amount of coal
dust the company must dispose of as a solid waste either on-site or
off-site. In addition, the use of tree resin emulsions and synthetic
polymer emulsions as dust suppressants have minimal environmental
impacts, but the use of salts and ligin products can have negative
impacts on the environment. Repeated applications of salts may harm
nearby vegetation, and ligin products have a high biological oxygen
demand in aquatic systems and can lead to fish kills and increases in
groundwater concentrations of iron, sulfur compounds, or other
pollutants. No significant energy impacts, as measured relative to the
regulatory baseline, are expected as a result of the proposed PM
limits.
    The analysis concludes minimal changes in prices and output for the
industries affected by the final rule. The price increase for baseload
electricity, cement prices, coke prices, and coal prices are
insignificant.

VI. Request for Comment

    We request comments on all aspects of the proposed amendments. All
significant comments received will be considered in the development and
selection of the final amendments and, if appropriate, we will publish
a supplemental proposal. We specifically solicit comments on additional
amendments that are under consideration. These potential amendments are
described below.
    BDT for Thermal Dryers. No new thermal dryers have been installed
at bituminous coal mines in the past decade, but two new thermal dryers
have been installed at metal production facilities in the past decade.
Both of those thermal dryers are fueled by natural gas and use fabric
filters to control PM emissions. However, we are not aware of a fabric
filter that has been used on a thermal dryer located at a bituminous
coal mine. We are requesting comment on whether the high dew point of
coal-fired thermal dryer exhaust at bituminous mines could cause
potential difficulties with the use of a fabric filter. If we determine
that the use of fabric filters at thermal dryers located at bituminous
coal mines would not pose any significant technical difficulties and
would not be cost prohibitive, we will consider basing the revised PM
standard for thermal dryers on the performance of a fabric filter
instead of a venturi scrubber. In addition, we are requesting comment
on whether the proposed standards for thermal dryers are adequate to
control condensable PM, PM2.5, and PM10 or whether additional standards
are needed to control these types of PM.
    Alternate requirements for an owner or operator of coal processing
and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer
equipment. We are requesting comment on if it is appropriate to
establish equipment specifications in addition to, as an alternate to,
or in place of the opacity standard for affected facilities not venting
emissions to a stack. Affected facilities using chemical suppression or
an equivalent dust control application typically do not emit through a
conveyance designed to capture the PM emissions. In addition, it may
not be practical to measure the mass of actual PM emissions from these
facilities and work practice standards might be more appropriate.
    Expanded coverage. We are requesting comment on expanding the
coverage to include open storage piles by changing the definition of
coal storage system. The Coal Handling Emissions Evaluation Roundtable
(CHEER) workshop proceedings provide default control efficiencies for
different technologies. We are requesting comment on the reliability
and validity of these default control efficiencies. We have not
developed cost estimates for some of these technologies. Also, we do
not presently have information relating different control techniques to
specific opacity limits and appropriate monitoring requirements. We
request comment on both of these issues. If we were to expand the
coverage to include open storage piles, work practice standards might
be more appropriate than opacity limits. Our current understanding is
that it is difficult to control opacity from open storage piles that
are being actively worked at all times, and State permitting
authorities often use opacity of open storage piles as an indication
that a work practice is required as opposed to a strict limit.
    Nonmetallic minerals processing. We are requesting comment on if it
is appropriate to allow owners and operators of a facility processing
nonmetallic minerals (as defined by subpart OOO) along with coal at the
same property the option of being exempt from the requirements of
subpart OOO as long as the nonmetallic mineral(s) is treated as coal
for the purposes of compliance with subpart Y. Steam generating units
with SO2 scrubbers and cement manufacturers process limestone along
with coal and consolidating the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to a single rule could lower the compliance burden for
these facilities while still providing equivalent protection for the
environment.

VII. 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 Office of Management and
Budget (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 proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1062.10.
    These proposed amendments to the existing standards of performance
for Coal Preparation Plants would add new monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. The information would be used by EPA to
ensure that any new affected facilities comply with the emission limits
and other requirements. Records and reports would be 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 would decide which units and what records or processes should be
inspected.
    These proposed amendments would 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 confidentially is
made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B, Confidentially of Business Information.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to
total 32,664 labor hours per year at an average annual cost of
$2,957,707. This estimate includes performance testing, excess emission
reports, notifications, and recordkeeping. There are no capital/start-
up costs or operational and maintenance costs associated with the
monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR. 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 current
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0260. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of the notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after April 28, 2008, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by May 28, 2008. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

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 the proposed amendments 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 proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
UMRA section 203 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide
for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that the proposed amendments contain no Federal
mandates 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 and monitoring costs
of the proposed amendments, compared to a baseline of no control, at
year five is $2 million. Thus, the proposed amendments are not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has
determined that the proposed amendments contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because the burden is small and the regulation does not
unfairly apply to small governments. Therefore, the proposed amendments
are not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
    These proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They
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 proposed amendments will
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local
governments; they will not preempt State law. Thus, EO 13132 does not
apply to these proposed amendments. In the spirit of EO 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote

communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on these proposed amendments from State
and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' These proposed amendments do
not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. We are not
aware of any coal preparation facilities owned by an Indian tribe.
Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to these proposed amendments. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on these proposed amendments
from tribal officials.

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 proposed 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 proposed action is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (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. Further,
we have concluded that this proposed action is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 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. Voluntary consensus standards
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 voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed 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 or carbon dioxide
content of the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are
acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available
from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
    The EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1 through
A-4), or 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7); and Performance
Specification 11 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). While the Agency has
identified 13 VCS as being potentially applicable to these methods
cited in this rule, we have decided not to use these standards in this
proposed rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been impractical
because they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this
rule. The search and review results are in the docket for this rule.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule
and amendments. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this proposed action.

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 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 proposed 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 proposed amendments would assure that all new coal
preparation plants install appropriate controls to limit health impacts
to nearby populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: April 16, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.17 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (a)(13);
    b. By removing paragraph (a)(14);
    c. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(15) through (a)(92) as
paragraphs (a)(14) through (a)(91); and
    d. By revising paragraph (h)(4).

Sec.  60.17  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (13) ASTM D388-77, 90, 91, 95, 98a, 99 (Reapproved 2004), 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.  60.254(c)(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.  60.4415(a)(2) and
60.4415(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart Y--[Amended]

    3. Part 60 is amended by revising subpart Y to read as follows:
Subpart Y--Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants
Sec.
60.250 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.251 Definitions.
60.252 Standards for particulate matter.
60.253 Monitoring of operations.
60.254 Test methods and procedures.
60.255 Reporting and recordkeeping.

Subpart Y--Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants

Sec.  60.250  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to any of the
following affected facilities in coal preparation plants which process
more than 181 Mg (200 tons) per day: Thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment (air tables), coal processing and conveying
equipment (including breakers and crushers), coal storage systems, and
transfer and loading systems.
    (b) Any affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after October
24, 1974, is subject to the requirements of this subpart.

Sec.  60.251  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the
meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
    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.
    Bituminous coal means solid fossil fuel classified as bituminous
coal by ASTM Designation D388 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
60.17).
    Coal means all solid fossil fuels classified as anthracite,
bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by ASTM Designation D388
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17).
    Coal preparation 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.
    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 conveying systems.
    Coal storage system means any facility used to store coal except
for open storage piles.
    Cyclonic flow means a spiraling movement of exhaust gases within a
duct or stack.
    Pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment means any facility which
classifies bituminous coal by size or separates bituminous coal from
refuse by application of air stream(s).
    Thermal dryer means 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.
    Transfer and loading system means any facility used to transfer and
load coal for shipment.

Sec.  60.252  Standards for particulate matter.

    (a) Thermal dryers. On and after the date on which the initial
performance test is completed or required to be completed under Sec.
60.8, the owner or operator of thermal dryers subject to the provisions
of this subpart must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section, as applicable to the affected facility.
    (1) For each thermal dryer constructed, reconstructed, or modified
on or before April 28, 2008, the owner or operator must ensure that
emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility:
    (i) Do not contain particulate matter in excess of 0.070 g/dscm
(0.031 gr/dscf); and
    (ii) Do not exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater.
    (2) For each thermal dryer constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after April 28, 2008, the owner or operator must ensure that emissions
discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility do not
contain particulate matter in excess of 0.046 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf).
    (3) For each thermal dryer constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after April 28, 2008 that does not use a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system (PM CEMS) according to the requirements
Sec.  60.253(e), the owner or operator must ensure that emissions
discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility do not
exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater.
    (b) Pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment. On and after the date on
which the initial performance test is completed or required to be
completed under Sec.  60.8, the owner or operator of pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment subject to the provisions of this subpart must meet
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, as
applicable to the affected facility.
    (1) For each pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed,
reconstructed, or modified on or before April 28, 2008, the owner or
operator must ensure that emissions discharged into the atmosphere from
the affected facility:
    (i) Do not contain particulate matter in excess of 0.040 g/dscm
(0.017 gr/dscf); and
    (ii) Do not exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater.
    (2) For each pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008, the owner or operator
must ensure that emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the
affected facility do not contain particulate matter in excess of 0.011
g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf).
    (3) For each pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008 and that does not use a
PM CEMS according to the requirements in Sec.  60.253(e), the owner or
operator must ensure that emissions discharged into the atmosphere from
the affected facility do not exhibit 5 percent opacity or greater.
    (c) Coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems,
and coal transfer systems. On and after the date on which the initial
performance test is completed or required to be completed under Sec.
60.8, the owner or operator of coal processing and conveying equipment,
coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems subject to the
provisions of this subpart must meet the requirements in paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section as applicable to the affected facility.
    (1) For each coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
system, and transfer and loading system constructed, reconstructed, or
modified on or before April 28, 2008, the owner or operator must ensure
that emissions

discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility do not
exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater.
    (2) For each coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
system, and transfer and loading system constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after April 28, 2008, the owner or operator must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, as
applicable to each affected facility.
    (i) For each affected facility that does not use a PM CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec.  60.253(e), the owner or operator
must ensure that emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the
affected facility do not exhibit 5 percent opacity or greater.
    (ii) For each new and reconstructed affected facility that
processes, conveys, stores, transfers, or loads coals, except those
that exclusively process, convey, store, transfer, or load bituminous
coal, must vent all emissions through a stack and ensure that emissions
discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility do not
contain particulate matter in excess of 0.011 g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf).
    (iii) For each modified affected facility that was in an enclosure
prior to the modification and that processes, conveys, stores,
transfers, or loads coals, except those that exclusively process,
convey, store, transfer, or load bituminous coal must vent all
emissions through a stack and ensure that emissions discharged into the
atmosphere from the affected facility do not contain particulate matter
in excess of 0.011 g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf).
    (d) Owners and operators of affected facilities constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008 that are subject to a
particulate matter emissions limit in this section and do not use a PM
CEMS according to the requirements of Sec.  60.253(e) must demonstrate
compliance with the applicable particulate matter emissions limit by
conducting an initial performance test and, thereafter, an annual
performance test according to the requirements in Sec.  60.254(c).

Sec.  60.253  Monitoring of operations.

    (a) The owner or operator of any thermal dryer constructed,
reconstructed, or modified on or before April 28, 2008 shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate monitoring devices as
follows:
    (1) 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).
    (2) For affected facilities that use a venturi scrubber emissions
control equipment:
    (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 pressure or water 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 pressure or flow
rate. The pressure sensor or tap or flow rate sensor must be located
close to the water discharge point. The Administrator may be consulted
for approval of alternative locations.
    (b) All monitoring devices under paragraph (a) of this section are
to be recalibrated annually in accordance with procedures under Sec.
60.13(b).
    (c) The owner or operator of each thermal dryer and pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April
28, 2008 must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate
the monitoring devices specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section, as applicable, except as provided for in paragraph (d) of
this section.
    (1) For a thermal dryer, 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).
    (2) For a fabric filter (baghouse), a bag leak detection system
according to the requirements in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (3) For a venturi scrubber, monitoring devices according to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) 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 pressure or water 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 pressure or flow
rate. The pressure sensor or tap or flow rate sensor must be located
close to the water discharge point.
    (d) The monitoring requirements in paragraph (c) of this section do
not apply to an affected facility if the owner or operator installs,
calibrates, maintains, and continuously operates at that facility a
particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system (PM CEMS)
according the requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (e) Each PM CEMS used in lieu of the monitoring requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section must be installed, calibrated,
maintained, and continuously operated according to the requirements in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must install, certify, operate, and maintain the PM CEMS
according to Performance Specification 11 in appendix B of this part
and procedure 2 in appendix F of this part.
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of the PM CEMS
according to the applicable requirements of Sec.  60.13, Performance
Specification 11 in appendix B of this part, and procedure 2 in
appendix F of this part.
    (3) During each relative accuracy test run of the PM CEMS required
by Performance Specification 11 in appendix B of this part, collect the
particulate matter and stack gas molecular weight data concurrently (or
within a 30- to 60-minute period) with both the PM CEMS and the
performance testing using the following test methods.
    (i) For particulate matter, Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part
shall be used.
    (ii) For stack gas molecular weight determination, Method 3, 3A, or
3B of Appendix A-2 of this part, as applicable shall be used.
    (4) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests shall be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in appendix F
of this part.
    (f) Each bag leak detection system used to comply with the
monitoring requirements of this subpart must be installed, calibrated,
maintained, and continuously operated according to the requirements in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (f)(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 (0.00044 grains per actual
cubic foot) 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 (f)(2) of this section, and the alarm must be located such
that it can be heard or otherwise observed by the appropriate plant
personnel.
    (iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system,
you 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, you shall 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 (f)(2) of this section.
    (vi) Once per quarter, you 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 (f)(2) of this
section.
    (vii) You 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) You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag
leak detection system. You 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
(f)(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 (f)(3)
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators
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, you must initiate
procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the
alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of this section, you
must address 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.
    (g) An owner or operator of a coal processing and conveying
equipment, coal storage systems, or transfer and loading system with an
applicable opacity limit that commenced construction, reconstruction,
or modification after April 28, 2008 must comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Monitor visible emissions from each affected facility according
to the requirements in either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
    (i) Conduct a series of three 1-hour observations (during normal
operation) at least once per calendar month that the coal preparation
plant operates using Method 22 of Appendix A-7 of this part at the
affected facility and demonstrate that the sum of the occurrences of
any visible emissions at each affected facility is not in excess of 5
percent of the observation period (i.e., 9 minutes per 3-hour period);
or
    (ii) Prepare and implement a written site-specific monitoring plan
based on the application of a digital opacity compliance system that
has been approved by the Administrator. The observations should include
at least one digital image every 15 seconds for three separate 1-hour
periods (during normal operation) every calendar month that the coal
preparation plant operates. An approvable monitoring plan should
include a demonstration that the occurrences of visible emissions are
not in excess of 5 percent of the observation period (i.e., 36
observations per 3-hour 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 (http://www.eps.gov/tnn/emc/
prelim/pre-008.pdf).
    (2) For each observation period resulting in cumulative visible
emissions periods in excess of 5 percent of the observation period, the
owner or operator must conduct an opacity performance test with Method
9 of Appendix A-4 of this part to verify compliance within 24 hours
from the day on which the observations were made.

Sec.  60.254  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec.  60.8 for
affected facilities constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or
before April 28, 2008, the owner or operator shall use as reference
methods and procedures the test methods in appendices A-1 through A-8
of this part or other methods and procedures as specified in this
section, except as provided in Sec.  60.8(b).
    (b) The owner or operator of an affected facility constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after April 28, 2008 shall use the following
procedures to measure particular matter emissions from that facility:
    (1) Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part shall be used to
determine the particulate matter concentration. 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.
    (2) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part and the procedures in
Sec.  60.11 shall

be used to determine opacity from all affected facilities except those
that do not vent PM emissions through a stack.
    (3) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part, the procedures in Sec.
60.11, and the additional procedures in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section shall be used to determine opacity from affected
facilities that do not vent PM emissions through a stack.
    (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 emission sources and make observations such
that the line of vision is approximately perpendicular to the plume and
wind direction.
    (iii) 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.
    (c) For each affected facility subject to a particulate matter
emission limit in Sec.  60.252 that is constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after April 28, 2008 the owner or operator must conduct each
performance test according to Sec.  60.8 using the test methods and
procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Method 1 or 1A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1) 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 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1), or 2G
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2) to determine the volumetric flow rate of
the stack gas.
    (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2) to determine
the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. You may use ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) as an alternative to Method 3B (40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2).
    (4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) to determine the
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) to determine the PM
concentration or Method 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) for positive
pressure fabric filter. A minimum of three valid test runs comprise a
particulate matter performance test.
    (d) For each affected facility subject to an opacity limit in Sec.
60.252 that is constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 28,
2008, the owner or operator must conduct the performance test as
follows:
    (1) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part and the procedures in
Sec.  60.11 shall be used to determine opacity from all affected
facilities except those that do not vent PM emissions through a stack.
    (2) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part, the procedures in Sec.
60.11, and the additional procedures in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section shall be used to determine opacity from affected
facilities that do not vent PM emissions through a stack.
    (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 emission sources and make observations such
that the line of vision is approximately perpendicular to the plume and
wind direction.
    (iii) 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.

Sec.  60.255  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) An owner or operator of a coal preparation plant that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after April 28, 2008
shall maintain in a logbook (written or electronic) on-site and made
available upon request. The logbook shall record the following:
    (1) The date and time of periodic coal preparation plant facility
opacity observations noting those sources with emissions above the
action level along with the results of the corresponding opacity
performance test.
    (2) The amount and type of coal processed each calendar month.
    (3) The amount of chemical stabilizer or water purchased for use in
the coal preparation plant.
    (4) Monthly certification that the dust suppressant systems were
operational when any coal was processed and that manufacturer
recommendations were followed for all control systems.
    (b) [RESERVED]
[FR Doc. E8-9104 Filed 4-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P