[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25304-25327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11912]



[[Page 25303]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 60



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

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 25304]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260; FRL-8908-7]
RIN 2060-AO57


Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing 
Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposal.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a supplemental action to the proposed 
amendments to the new source performance standards for coal preparation 
and processing plants published on April 28, 2008. The 2008 proposal, 
among other things, proposed to revise the particulate matter and 
opacity standards for thermal dryers, pneumatic coal cleaning 
equipment, and coal handling equipment located at coal preparation and 
processing plants. This supplemental action proposes to revise the 
particulate matter emissions and opacity limits included in the 
original proposal for thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-cleaning 
equipment, and coal handling equipment. It also proposes to expand the 
applicability of the thermal dryer standards so that the proposed 
standards for thermal dryers would apply to both direct contact and 
indirect contact thermal dryers drying all coal ranks and pneumatic 
coal-cleaning equipment cleaning all coal ranks. In addition, it 
proposes to establish a sulfur dioxide emission limit and a combined 
nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions limit for thermal dryers. 
We are also proposing to amend the definition of coal for purposes of 
subpart Y to include petroleum coke and coal refuse. Finally, it 
proposes to establish work practice standards to control coal dust 
emissions from open storage piles and roadways associated with coal 
preparation and processing plants.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2009. 
If anyone contacts EPA by June 8, 2009 requesting to speak at a public 
hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on June 11, 2009. 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 June 26, 2009.
    Because, under the terms of a consent decree, the final action must 
be signed not later than September 26, 2009, EPA will not grant 
requests for extensions beyond these dates.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99f8b4f8f7fdb4ebb4fdf6faf2fcedd9fce9f8b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bddc90dcd3d990cf90d9d2ded6d8c9fdd8cddc93dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> By Facsimile: (202) 566-1741.
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> 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 (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#402a2f282e332f2e6e2d213239002530216e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8c2c7c0c6dbc7c686c5c9dad1e8cdd8c986cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a>.

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.

[[Page 25305]]

 
                                        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 and processing 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 anyone contacts EPA by June 8, 2009 requesting 
to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on June 
11, 2009. If a public hearing is held, 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 Mrs. Pamela Garrett at 919-541-
7966 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. Affected Facilities
    B. PM and Opacity Limits for Thermal Dryers
    C. SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and CO Emission Limits for 
Thermal Dryers
    D. PM and Opacity Limits for Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning Equipment, 
Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage Systems, and 
Transfer and Loading Systems
    E. Emissions Monitoring Requirements
    F. Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning 
Equipment, Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage 
Systems, and Transfer and Loading Systems
    G. Electronic Reporting
    H. Addition of Petroleum Coke and Coal Refuse to the Definition 
of Coal
    I. Additional Amendments
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
    A. Additional Affected Facilities
    B. Selection of Thermal Dryer PM and Opacity Emissions Limits
    C. Selection of Thermal Dryer SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
and CO Emissions Limits
    D. Selection of Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning Equipment, Coal 
Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage Systems, and 
Transfer and Loading System PM and Opacity Limits
    E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
    F. Selection of Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Pneumatic 
Coal-Cleaning Equipment, Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, 
Coal Storage Systems, and Transfer and Loading Systems
    G. Required Electronic Reporting
    H. Addition of Petroleum Coke and Coal Refuse to the Definition 
of Coal
    I. Additional Amendments
    J. Emissions Reductions
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

    On April 28, 2008 (73 FR 22901), we proposed amendments to the New 
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Coal Preparation and Processing 
Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y). The Federal Register action for 
that original proposal included additional background information on 
the coal preparation NSPS. That information is not repeated in this 
action. EPA received numerous comments in response to the April 2008 
proposal. After reviewing those comments and considering additional 
data, EPA decided to publish this supplemental proposal which contains 
proposed emission limits and monitoring requirements that differ from 
those in the original action and proposes to apply those requirements 
to additional affected facilities.

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments

    In this supplemental action, we are proposing to establish 
emissions standards for both direct contact and indirect thermal dryers 
and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment that process all coal ranks. We 
are also proposing to establish work practice standards to control coal 
dust emissions from open storage piles and roadways associated with 
coal preparation and processing plants. In addition, we are proposing 
to establish a sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) emission limit and a 
combined nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) and carbon monoxide (CO) 
emissions limit for thermal dryers. Finally, we are proposing 
particulate matter (PM) emission limits, opacity limits, and monitoring 
requirements that differ from those included in the April 2008 
proposal. For all standards proposed in the April 2008 proposed rule, 
this supplemental proposal will not change the applicability date for 
determining whether a source constitutes a ``new source'' subject to 
the final version of such standards. All standards originally included 
in the April 2008 proposed rule, regardless of whether the level of the 
standard is modified in this supplemental proposal or in an eventual 
final rule, apply to

[[Page 25306]]

sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008. 
Standards, such as the SO<INF>2</INF> and combined NO<INF>X</INF> and 
CO standards, proposed for the first time in this supplemental 
proposal, apply to all sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed 
after May 27, 2009. A summary of the proposed amendments is presented 
below.

A. Affected Facilities

    The existing NSPS for coal preparation and processing plants in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Y establishes emission limits for the following 
affected facilities located at coal preparation and processing plants 
which process more than 181 megagrams (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.
    In the April 2008 proposal, we did not propose any revisions to 
these provisions. Several commenters suggested that standards should 
also be developed for indirect thermal dryers, thermal dryers drying 
all coal ranks, open storage piles, and coal dust associated with 
roadways associated with coal preparation and processing plants. 
Commenters said EPA's original rationale for limiting the applicability 
for thermal dryers was a lack of emissions data and thermal dryers, and 
pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment processing non-bituminous coals did 
not exist and that these reasons are no longer valid. Commenters said 
indirect thermal dryers and direct contact thermal dryers ``upgrading'' 
subbituminous and lignite will become more common in the future. Even 
though power plant emissions might be decreased, if emissions standards 
are not established on the pre-combustion process, they argued, there 
is no environmental benefit and potential net degradation to air 
quality from coal ``upgrading.''
    For open storage piles and roadways, commenters pointed out that 
both are significant sources of PM emissions for which control 
technology is available. One commenter pointed out that enclosures, 
wind fences and other barriers, and wet or chemical suppression are 
available control technologies. Potential controls for coal road dust 
include tire or truck wash systems, sweeper trucks, and wet 
suppression.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, we 
are proposing to amend the definition of thermal dryer for units 
constructed after May 27, 2009 to include both direct and indirect 
dryers drying all coal ranks. We are also proposing to amend the 
definition of pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment for units constructed 
after May 27, 2009 to include pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment 
cleaning all coal ranks. In addition, we are proposing to establish 
work practice standards that apply to open storage piles and roads 
associated with a coal preparation plant constructed after May 27, 
2009.

B. PM and Opacity Limits for Thermal Dryers

    In the April 2008 proposed rule, we proposed a PM standard of 0.046 
grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.020 grains per dry 
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)) and proposed to retain the existing 1976 
rule's opacity limit of less than 20 percent for thermal dryers 
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008. We 
received comments that the PM limit would be prohibitively expensive 
for modified and reconstructed units to achieve, but that the limit 
should be lower for new units and should be based on the use of a 
fabric filter (baghouse).
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, we 
are now proposing to revise our April 2008 proposal regarding PM and 
opacity standards for thermal dryers. We are now proposing separate 
standards for new, reconstructed, and modified units. We are proposing 
to revise the limits for new units constructed after April 28, 2008, to 
0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) of PM and an opacity limit of less than 10 
percent. We are proposing to revise the PM limit for units 
reconstructed after April 28, 2008, to 0.045 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) and 
proposing to maintain the existing 1976 rule's opacity limit of less 
than 20 percent. For units modified after April 28, 2008, we are 
proposing to maintain the existing 1976 rule's PM limit of 0.070 g/dscm 
(0.031 gr/dscf) and the existing 1976 rule's opacity limit of less than 
20 percent.

C. SO2, NOX, and CO Emission Limits for Thermal Dryers

    The existing NSPS does not limit emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, or CO from coal preparation facilities, and in the 
April 2008 proposed rule, we did not propose to add limits for these 
pollutants. A commenter suggested that standards should be established 
for each pollutant because thermal dryers emit these pollutants and can 
cause or contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably 
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The commenter also 
said using AP-42 emission factors, a 2,000 ton/hr coal thermal dryer 
would emit 12,000 tons/yr SO<INF>2</INF> and 1,400 tons/yr 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and because cost-effective controls exist the EPA 
should base requirements on the use of those controls.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, for 
owners/operators of thermal dryers constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after May 27, 2009 we are proposing to add the following 
emissions limits: for new, reconstructed, and modified units, an 
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 85 nanograms per Joule (ng/J) (0.20 pounds per 
million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu)), or 50 percent reduction of 
potential SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and no more than 520 ng/J; for new 
units, a combined NO<INF>X</INF> and CO limit of 280 ng/J (0.65 lb/
MMBtu); for reconstructed units and modified units, a combined 
NO<INF>X</INF> and CO limit of 430 ng/J (1.0 lb/MMBtu).

D. PM and Opacity Limits for Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning Equipment, Coal 
Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage Systems, and Transfer 
and Loading Systems

    The original 1976 rulemaking treated each coal processing and 
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading 
systems operation as a separate affected facility. However, it grouped 
them together for the purpose of establishing a single emissions 
standard. This was done because all of the affected facilities could 
use similar control devices and achieve comparable emissions rates. We 
have concluded that this is still an appropriate approach. While each 
operation is a separate affected facility, all are either fugitive 
sources or point sources of PM and similar control equipment can be 
used on each affected facility resulting in comparable emissions. If 
additional data is submitted during the comment period that justifies 
different opacity limits for different coal handling operations, we 
will consider that approach in the final rule.
    The original 1976 rulemaking did not include a PM limit for coal 
processing and conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer 
and loading systems. However, the original rulemaking included an 
opacity limit of less than 20 percent for all of these affected 
facilities. For pneumatic coal cleaning equipment, the original 
rulemaking included both a PM limit of

[[Page 25307]]

0.040 g/dscm (0.017 gr/dscf) and an opacity limit of less than 10 
percent.
    In the April 2008 proposed rule, we proposed a PM limit of 0.011 g/
dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf) and an opacity limit of less than 5 percent for 
pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment and coal processing and conveying 
equipment, coal storage systems, and transfer and loading systems 
processing subbituminous and lignite coals that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after April 28, 2008. We proposed the 
same limit for both pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment and coal handling 
operations because we determined that the best demonstrated technology 
(BDT) for both was a fabric filter. In addition, we proposed to 
establish a requirement that coal handling equipment processing 
subbituminous and lignite coals must be vented to a control device. 
Multiple commenters challenged the requirement that coal handling 
equipment processing subbituminous and lignite coals must vent to a 
control device, and the levels of the PM and opacity limits.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, we 
have concluded it is not appropriate to require coal handling equipment 
processing subbituminous and lignite coals be vented to a control 
device. In addition, after further analysis, we are proposing to revise 
the PM emission limits for pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment and 
mechanically vented coal handling equipment processing all coal ranks 
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 2008, to 0.023 
g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). In addition, we are proposing to revise the 
opacity standard to no greater than 5 percent for all pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment, coal processing and conveying equipment, coal 
storage systems, and transfer and loading systems that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after April 28, 2008.

E. Emissions Monitoring Requirements

    In the April 2008 proposed rule, we proposed to require initial and 
annual performance tests for all new thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment, and subbituminous and lignite coal handling 
equipment vented to a control device. Commenters suggested that annual 
performance testing is unduly burdensome for subpart Y affected 
facilities and suggested either eliminating PM performance testing 
completely for coal handling equipment or tiered testing requirements 
depending on the results of the most recent performance test.
    Based on our review of public comments and further analysis, we are 
proposing to amend the testing requirements as follows: first, owners/
operators of an affected facility with design potential emissions 
rates, considering controls, of 1.0 Mg (1.1 tons) per year or less 
would be required to perform an initial performance test; however, 
annual performance testing would not be required as long as the design 
emissions rate is less than or equal to the applicable emissions limit 
(confirmed by the initial performance test), the manufacturer's 
recommended maintenance procedures are followed, and the unit operates 
without significant visible emissions. In addition, for owners/
operators with similar, separate affected facilities using identical 
control equipment with design potential emissions rates, considering 
controls, of 10 Mg (11 tons) per year or less, we are proposing to 
allow the permitting authority to authorize a single test as adequate 
demonstration for up to four other similar, separate affected 
facilities as long the following conditions are met: (1) The design 
emissions rate is less than or equal to the applicable emissions limit; 
(2) the individual performance test is 90 percent or less of the 
applicable standard; (3) the manufacturer's recommended maintenance 
procedures are followed for each control device; (4) each of the 
affected facilities operates without significant visible emissions; and 
(5) each affected facility conducts a performance test at least once 
every 5 years. Finally, we are proposing that owners/operators of 
affected facilities are only required to conduct performance testing 
every 24 months, as opposed to every 12 months, if the most recent 
performance test shows the affected facility emits at 50 percent or 
less of the applicable standard.
    In the April 2008 proposal, we did not propose to require the use 
of PM continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS), but added specific 
language directly to the regulatory text that allowed owners/operators 
to elect to use PM CEMS and provided incentives for them to do so by 
proposing to eliminate the opacity standard for owner/operators of 
affected facilities using a PM CEMS. Commenters suggested that by 
having the specific language directly in the regulatory text, we were 
encouraging State permitting authorities to require the use of PM CEMS, 
and that the costs are not justified for this source category. Other 
commenters suggested we require the use of PM CEMS for all units.
    Based on our review of public comments and further analysis, we are 
no longer proposing to include the PM CEMS-specific language in the 
regulatory text. Non-fugitive sources at coal preparation plants are 
generally not significant sources of PM emissions. Further, we are not 
aware of any application of PM CEMS to comparable emissions sources in 
the United States, and we have concluded that it is unlikely that an 
owner/operator of a coal preparation plant would elect to install PM 
CEMS. In addition, owners/operators continue to have the option to 
request site-specific approval for the use of PM CEMS as an alternate 
monitoring technique.
    In the April 2008 proposed rule, we proposed to require bag leak 
detection systems for owners/operators of thermal dryers and pneumatic-
coal cleaning equipment, if the dryer or equipment uses a fabric filter 
installed after April 28, 2008. Based on further analysis, we are 
proposing to require a bag leak detection system for owners/operators 
of any subpart Y affected facilities with fabric filters, if the filter 
has a design controlled potential emissions rate of 25 Mg (28 tons) or 
more. For this source category, the variable operation of fabric 
filters makes the likely actual emissions much less than the potential 
emissions rate and the added expense of a bag leak detection system for 
smaller sources is not justified. This requirement would apply to 
facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed after April 28, 
2008.

F. Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning 
Equipment, Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal Storage 
Systems, and Transfer and Loading Systems

    In the April 2008 proposed rule, we proposed the following PM 
monitoring requirements. Each affected facility would be required to 
perform an initial EPA Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 
performance test. Following the initial compliance test, three 1-hour 
EPA Method 22 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60 observations would be 
required for each affected facility at least once per calendar month 
that the coal preparation plant operates. If the sum of visible 
emissions exceeded 5 percent of the observation period, the owner/
operator would be required to conduct a Method 9 performance test 
within 24 hours. Commenters suggested that three 1-hour observations 
are unduly burdensome and suggested that it would be appropriate to 
include a provision allowing for corrective action prior to requiring a 
Method 9 performance test. In addition, a commenter suggested adding a 
provision for the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) 
as

[[Page 25308]]

an alternative to the Method 9 and Method 22 approach.
    Based on our review of public comments and further analysis, we are 
proposing to change the April 2008 proposed opacity monitoring 
requirements for pneumatic coal-cleaning and coal handling equipment. 
First, we are proposing to allow the use of a COMS as an alternative to 
all other opacity monitoring requirements. Second, we are proposing to 
allow an owner/operator of an affected facility to decrease the 
observation period for a Method 9 performance test from 3 hours to 60 
minutes if, during the initial 60 minutes of the observation of a 
Method 9 performance test, all the 6-minute averages are less than or 
equal to 3 percent and all the individual 15-second observations are 
less than or equal to 20 percent. Third, we are proposing to base the 
frequency of visible emissions monitoring on the results of the highest 
individual 15-second opacity observed during the most recent 
performance test. Owners/operators of affected facilities where the 
maximum 15-second opacity reading is greater than 5 percent would be 
required to conduct weekly Method 9 performance testing; owners/
operators of affected facilities where the maximum 15-second opacity 
reading is 5 percent would be required to conduct monthly Method 9 
performance testing; and owners/operators of affected facilities with 
no visible emissions would be required to conduct quarterly Method 9 
performance testing.
    As an alternative, owners/operators of affected facilities where 
the maximum 6-minute opacity reading from the most recent Method 9 
performance test is less than or equal to 3 percent could elect to use 
either Method 22 or a digital opacity monitoring system in lieu of 
subsequent Method 9 performance testing. The April 2008 proposal would 
have required a total of three 1-hour observations monthly. We have 
concluded that for sources with low opacity, it is more protective to 
the environment and minimizes burden to industry to increase the 
frequency of opacity observations, but to decrease the length of each 
observation. When a control device is operating properly there should 
be minimal visible emissions and a 1-hour observation would not provide 
any significant additional useful information than a 10 minute 
observation. In addition, by requiring more frequent observations we 
are decreasing the time period before a malfunctioning piece of control 
equipment is identified. Therefore, we have concluded it is appropriate 
to decrease the length of each observation to a minimum of 10 minutes, 
but to increase the frequency to daily observations.
    Further, we are proposing to base monitoring requirements for 
affected facilities, in part, on recent observations of visible 
emissions from the facilities. If no visible emissions are observed for 
7 consecutive operating days, observations could be reduced to once 
every 7 operating days. If an owner/operator of an affected facility 
observes visible emissions in excess of 5 percent during any 
observation and is unable to take corrective action, they would be 
required to conduct a Method 9 performance test with the previously 
specified frequency. Finally, to maintain consistency in the operation 
of the digital opacity monitoring system, the EPA Administrator would 
approve opacity monitoring plans for owners/operators that elect to use 
the digital opacity monitoring system to detect the presence of visible 
emissions.

G. Electronic Reporting

    We are proposing to take a step to improve data accessibility. We 
are proposing to require owners/operators of affected facilities at 
coal preparation 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. This option would be required as of July 1, 2011. For 
performance tests not accepted by WebFIRE, we are proposing to require 
owner/operators to mail summary results directly to EPA.

H. Addition of Petroleum Coke and Coal Refuse to the Definition of Coal

    We are proposing to amend the definition of coal for purposes of 
subpart Y to include petroleum coke and coal refuse. The amended 
definition will be used to make applicability determinations for all 
facilities constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009. 
This change indicates our determination that the subpart Y regulations 
should apply to affected facilities that prepare and process these non-
traditional materials that are processed like coal.

I. Additional Amendments

    We are also proposing several additional amendments. First, we are 
proposing to change the title of subpart Y from Coal Preparation Plants 
to Coal Preparation and Processing Plants. In addition, we are 
proposing to amend the definitions for bituminous coal, coal, coal 
storage system, pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment, and thermal dryer; 
to add definitions for anthracite, bag leak detection system, design 
controlled potential emissions rate, lignite, mechanical vent, 
operating day, potential combustion concentration, and subbituminous 
coal; and to delete the definition for cyclonic flow. Finally, we are 
proposing to exempt units that have been out of operation for at least 
60 days prior to the time of the required performance test from 
conducting the required performance test until 30 days after the 
facility is brought back into operation.

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. Additional Affected Facilities

    The existing NSPS for coal preparation and processing plants 
establishes PM and opacity limits for thermal dryers that dry 
bituminous coal where the exhaust gas comes in direct contact with the 
coal (direct contact thermal dryers). Thermal dryers that dry non-
bituminous coals, and dryers that reduce the moisture content of the 
coal through indirect heating using a heat transfer medium, are not 
presently subject to any emission standards. In the April 2008 
proposal, we proposed to amend the PM limit for direct contact thermal 
dryers drying bituminous coal, but did not propose to establish 
standards for other thermal dryers. We received comments suggesting 
that we include indirect thermal dryers and thermal dryers drying all 
coal ranks as affected facilities. In addition, commenters suggested we 
include limits for other criteria pollutants emitted from thermal 
dryers.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, in 
this supplemental proposal we are proposing emission standards that 
would apply to thermal dryers drying all ranks of coals and to both 
direct contact and indirect thermal dryers. We are proposing to amend 
the PM and opacity standards and to add both an SO<INF>2</INF> standard 
and a combined NO<INF>X</INF>-CO standard for thermal dryers.
    For indirect thermal dryers, the affected facility will include the 
heat source for the thermal dryer unless that heat source is subject to 
a boiler NSPS (e.g., subpart Da, Db, or Dc). Indirect thermal dryers 
use a heat transfer medium to supply heat and blow air over the coal to 
evaporate the water. The high moisture content air is vented through a 
stack and the dryer exhaust contains entrained PM. If the source of 
heat (the source of combustion or furnace) is subject to a boiler NSPS 
(subpart Da, Db, or Dc) then the furnace and the associated emissions 
would not

[[Page 25309]]

be part of the subpart Y affected facility. However, if the source of 
heat is not subject to a boiler NSPS, then the heat source and the 
associated emissions are part of the subpart Y affected facility.
    In situations where the heat source is part of the subpart Y 
affected facility and the exhaust is combined with the dryer exhaust in 
a single stack, the combined exhaust stack will contain all of the 
applicable pollutants (i.e., PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
CO) and all of the testing requirements would apply. However, in 
situations where the heat source is part of the subpart Y affected 
facility and the exhaust is not combined with the dryer exhaust, the 
subpart Y requirements would apply differently to the dryer exhaust 
stack and the combustion exhaust stack. The only applicable pollutant 
in the dryer exhaust would be PM. Therefore, the only performance test 
that would be required on the dryer exhaust would be for PM. However, 
all of the requirements of subpart Y, including the PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, 
and NO<INF>X</INF>-CO standards, would apply to the combustion exhaust 
stack and all of the testing requirements would apply.
    In situations where the heat source is not part of the subpart Y 
affected facility because it is a unit covered by a steam generating 
NSPS (e.g., 40 CFR part 60 subparts Da, Db, or Dc), the only applicable 
pollutant contained in the thermal dryer stack exhaust would be PM. 
Because the thermal dryer stack exhaust would not contain 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, or CO, the SO<INF>2</INF> and combined 
NO<INF>X</INF>-CO testing requirements would not apply.
    We are proposing to establish standards that apply to direct 
contact and indirect thermal dryers drying all coal ranks of coal 
because the control technologies commonly used on thermal dryers--
venturi scrubbers and fabric filters--control PM equally well 
regardless of the source of PM, and we have concluded that all coal 
thermal dryers using similar control technologies can achieve 
comparable emissions rates. In addition, subpart Y was originally 
promulgated in 1976 and additional pollution control technologies have 
become available since then.
    Open storage piles and dust associated with roadways are 
potentially significant sources of fugitive PM emissions. These sources 
are integral parts of coal preparation plants, located on contiguous or 
adjacent property, and under common control. Although part of the coal 
preparation plant and, thus, contained within the source category 
listed in 1976, the existing subpart Y regulations do not set standards 
for emissions from open storage piles or from coal dust from roadways. 
In the April 2008 proposal, we requested comment on including 
requirements for open storage piles. We received comments both in 
support of and opposed to including requirements for open storage 
piles. In addition, we received comments in support of including 
requirements for the coal dust disturbed by, or released from, vehicle 
tires as vehicles move within the coal preparation plant. Based on our 
review of public comments and subsequent analysis, we have concluded 
that both open storage piles and vehicle tires are significant sources 
of potential fugitive PM emissions; however, neither operation lends 
itself to an emissions standard. Therefore, in this supplemental 
proposal we are proposing to establish work practice standards instead 
of an opacity or PM limit for these types of affected facilities.

B. Selection of Thermal Dryer PM and Opacity Emissions Limits

    In the April 2008 proposal, we proposed to revise the PM limit for 
thermal dryers that dry bituminous coal from 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/
dscf) to 0.046 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf). We received comments that 
achieving this limit would be prohibitively expensive for modified and 
reconstructed units, but that the limit should be lower for new units.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, in 
this supplemental proposal we are proposing separate PM limits for new, 
reconstructed, and modified units. As discussed in the Thermal Dryer 
Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, the physical layout of existing 
thermal dryers makes it more expensive to reduce emissions from 
existing dryers than from new or reconstructed units. Therefore, we are 
proposing to maintain the PM limit for modified facilities at the 
existing 1976 limit of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf). We continue to be 
interested in additional performance test data and information on the 
ability of modified units to achieve additional PM reductions beyond 
the present limit and are also considering establishing a lower PM 
standard between 0.045 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) and 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 
gr/dscf) for the final rule. We specifically request comment on all 
this range of possible standards, including 0.045 g/dscm (0.020 gr/
dscf).
    Because reconstructed facilities could take design options into 
account during the reconstruction process, we are proposing a PM limit 
of 0.045 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) for reconstructed facilities. This 
level of control has been demonstrated to be consistently achievable at 
several existing facilities, and we have concluded that a reconstructed 
facility could design a PM control strategy based on conventional wet 
scrubbing that could achieve this emissions rate at all evaporative 
load rates.
    As described in Thermal Dryer Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, 
new thermal dryers would likely be designed as either a coal-fired 
recirculation thermal dryer or an indirect thermal dryer. We have 
determined that BDT for controlling PM emissions from these types of 
dryers is a fabric filter. Data collected to date demonstrates that 
fabric filters on such facilities can achieve emission rates of 0.004 
to 0.0031 gr/dscf. As explained below, based on these data and recent 
permit limits for new thermal dryers using a baghouse, we are proposing 
a PM limit of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) and less than 10 percent 
opacity for new facilities. This limit would provide an adequate 
compliance margin for new units and is lower than the limit of 0.046 g/
dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) in the April 2008 proposal. The April 2008 
proposed limit, however, would have applied to new, reconstructed and 
modified facilities.
    It is important to note that although the standard is based on the 
use of a fabric filter, a new facility would not be required to use any 
specific control technology. Our analysis demonstrates that a new 
facility could use a once-through dryer design and achieve the proposed 
standard using a wet scrubber to control PM emissions. We identified 
two wet-control approaches that an owner/operator of a new facility 
could use to achieve this limit. The first approach is to use a high-
energy venturi scrubber. We analyzed the incremental cost effectiveness 
of the increased pressure drop necessary to achieve the proposed PM 
limit for a model thermal dryer (see Thermal Dryer Memo in Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0260). The incremental control cost of using venturi 
scrubbers ranged from $3,100/ton for an emission level of 0.020 gr/dscf 
to $16,000/ton for an emission level of 0.0050 gr/dscf.
    Based on this analysis, we concluded that an emissions rate of 
0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) would be cost effective for a new thermal 
dryer using a high-energy venturi scrubber to control PM emissions, 
even in the absence of a baghouse or electrostatic precipitator (ESP). 
We recognize that no recent coal-fired thermal dryer has been 
constructed and that this level of control has not yet been 
demonstrated on a subpart Y affected facility with wet controls. This 
level of control, however, has been

[[Page 25310]]

demonstrated at comparable, recently constructed facilities (see 
Thermal Dryer Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260). A venturi scrubber, 
moreover, is not the only wet control strategy an owner/operator could 
use to control PM emissions. To decrease power requirements, a low 
pressure tray scrubber could be used to remove the majority of the PM 
emissions, and then either a wet ESP or cloud chamber could be used to 
remove the remaining fine PM. Both a wet ESP and cloud chamber have 
demonstrated an ability to control PM emissions to below 0.023 g/dscm 
(0.010 gr/dscf). Thus, although wet scrubbing is not considered BDT for 
controlling PM emissions from new thermal dryers, the proposed level of 
PM control would be achievable using wet control approaches, such as a 
wet scrubber.

C. Selection of Thermal Dryer SO2, NOX, and CO Emissions Limits

    SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from a thermal dryer are a function of the 
sulfur content of the fuel burned in the dryer. However, measured 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are often less than what would be 
theoretically predicted based on the sulfur in the fuel burned assuming 
all of the sulfur in the fuel is emitted as SO<INF>2</INF>. There are 
two possible reasons for this discrepancy: Either SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions are reduced by the wet scrubber installed to control PM or a 
portion of the S0<INF>2</INF> is adsorbed as sulfuric acid into the 
pores of the coal being dried (due to the reaction of the 
SO<INF>2</INF> with oxygen in the flue gas). Emissions data for 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls from coal-fired thermal dryers are limited, and 
at this time it is not possible for us to determine the full extent to 
which each mechanism is reducing emissions. Based on the emissions data 
from other sources using venturi scrubbers primarily for PM control, it 
appears that the majority of SO<INF>2</INF> control occurs as a co-
benefit of the wet scrubber. The measurements of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from thermal dryers with wet scrubbers collected for this 
review range from 0.02 to 1.9 lb/MMBtu and, for the sources reporting 
removal efficiencies, overall control efficiencies range from 50 to 98 
percent.
    Existing facilities presently use two techniques to specifically 
control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The first approach is to spray a 
caustic solution (e.g., sodium hydroxide, NaOH) on the coal before it 
enters the drying chamber. The caustic reacts with the SO<INF>2</INF> 
in the drying chamber and forms a salt (sodium sulfate, 
Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>4</INF>) that is collected in the PM control 
device. The other approach is to add caustic directly to the wet 
scrubber fluid and control SO<INF>2</INF> along with PM. Wet scrubbers 
designed specifically for SO<INF>2</INF> control are able to achieve 
greater than 95 percent reduction. However, the wet scrubbers used on 
existing thermal dryers are designed for PM control and not 
specifically for SO<INF>2</INF> control. Therefore, high levels of 
SO<INF>2</INF> control are likely to be difficult to achieve without 
redesign of the scrubber (e.g., different construction materials to 
handle the corrosion resulting from use of the caustic solution, 
scaling deposits, and plugging of liquid lines). Nonetheless, if 
scaling deposit and plugging of liquid lines were a concern, an owner/
operator using a wet scrubber to control SO<INF>2</INF> could switch to 
newer scrubbing agents with a higher solubility, such as calcium 
magnesium acetate. Based on the performance of one existing facility 
and analysis of other venturi scrubbers used to control SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions, we have concluded an existing thermal dryer with a wet 
scrubber could achieve 90 percent reduction without a significant 
redesign.
    As discussed previously, we have concluded that BDT for controlling 
PM from a new thermal dryer is a fabric filter. PM has historically 
been the primary pollutant of concern for subpart Y affected 
facilities. Therefore, in analyzing BDT for SO<INF>2</INF> control, we 
considered the incremental cost of controls to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from thermal dryers with fabric filters.
    Adding a wet scrubber for the sole purpose of controlling 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions beyond 50 percent control (i.e., to achieve an 
additional 40 percent control) has an incremental cost of over $5,000/
ton of SO<INF>2</INF> controlled (see Thermal Dryer Memo in Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0260). This high cost is partially due to the fact that 
most thermal dryers are not typically large, ranging from 100 to 200 
MMBtu/hr, and are not major sources of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions; these 
factors result in the fixed costs of scrubbing units being high for 
smaller facilities. In addition to the high costs, facilities with wet 
scrubbers must dispose of the scrubber sludge. For these reasons, we 
have concluded that wet scrubbers are not a cost-effective control 
technology, and are not BDT for this source category.
    For a lower cost option, we evaluated the use of dry sorbent 
injection or spraying caustic on the coal prior to the drying chamber. 
The caustic approach is presently used at one facility, and the salt 
produced is removed by the PM control device. We do not have detailed 
information on the contribution of each mechanism on overall 
SO<INF>2</INF> control. However, if we assume the same absolute 
amounts, in lb/MMBtu, are controlled by absorption onto the coal and as 
a co-benefit of the venturi scrubber, as described in the Thermal Dryer 
Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, the caustic spray is achieving 
approximately 50 percent reduction in theoretical SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions. We have not identified any facilities which apply sorbent 
injection to a thermal dryer, but it has been applied to industrial and 
utility boilers, and the technology is directly transferable to coal-
fired thermal dryers. Various companies supply calcium- and sodium-
based sorbent reagents, and the technology can be used at any facility 
with injection locations, sufficient residence time, and a suitable 
temperature range. A new thermal dryer could be designed to include an 
injection site into the combustion gases above the burners and prior to 
the drying chamber. An advantage of using sorbent injection in 
combination with a baghouse is that the sorbent forms a cake on the 
bags and increases SO<INF>2</INF> control. Sorbent SO<INF>2</INF> 
control efficiencies vary between 30 and 60 percent for calcium-based 
agents and can be as high as 90 percent for sodium-based agents. Higher 
levels of control have been achieved in boilers with sorbent injection, 
but this control has not been applied to thermal dryers and we have 
concluded that 50 percent would be a reasonable expectation. Higher 
percent reductions would be technically achievable with the addition of 
more sorbent, but incremental costs would increase. The cost per ton of 
SO<INF>2</INF> controlled using sorbent injection is approximately 
$1,000 per ton and is considered cost effective for this source 
category.
    For the reasons described above, we have concluded that dry sorbent 
injection into the thermal dryer and spraying caustic onto the coal 
prior to the thermal dryer are both BDT for SO<INF>2</INF> reduction 
from new, modified, and reconstructed thermal dryers. Also for the 
reasons described above, we have concluded that a 50 percent 
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction is the standard that can be achieved by the 
application of BDT for controlling SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to a 
thermal dryer. This standard reflects the degree of emissions reduction 
achievable by the technology available and provides an adequate 
compliance margin for both sorbent injection into the thermal dryer and 
caustic spraying onto the coal prior to the drying chamber.
    We are also proposing to establish a maximum emission rate of 520 
ng/J (1.2 lb/MMBtu). We believe it is appropriate to establish this 
upper limit, in addition to the 50 percent reduction requirement, 
because control is easier and more cost-

[[Page 25311]]

effective at high pollutant concentrations. Adding a wet scrubber to 
strictly control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for thermal dryers with an 
actual stack emissions rate of 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/MMBtu) or more has an 
incremental cost of less than $3,000/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> controlled 
and is considered cost-effective for this source category.
    Finally, our analysis also demonstrates that facilities with lower 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission rates may not be able to consistently achieve 
design rate percent reduction efficiencies because control is more 
technically difficult at lower pollutant concentrations. For this 
reason we are setting a lower, alternate limit of 85 ng/J (0.20 lb/
MMBtu). A source that can meet the lower alternate limit does not also 
need to demonstrate that it is reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by a 
specified percent. This approach is consistent with the approach used 
in the NSPS for steam generating units, 40 CFR part 60, subparts Da, 
Db, and Dc. We continue to be interested in additional SO<INF>2</INF> 
performance test data from thermal dryers and comparable facilities 
using caustic sprays, sorbent injection, and scrubbers to control 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and are currently considering an 
SO<INF>2</INF> percent reduction requirement of between 50 and 90 
percent for the final rule.
    We are also proposing to add a combined NO<INF>X</INF> and CO 
emission limit for thermal dryers. As explained below, we have 
determined that advanced combustion controls are BDT for both 
NO<INF>X</INF> and CO emissions from thermal dryers. Such controls can 
achieve both low NO<INF>X</INF> and CO emissions. In addition, the 
pollutant emissions rates are related. NO<INF>X</INF> reduction 
techniques that rely on delayed combustion and lower combustion 
temperatures tend to increase incomplete combustion and result in a 
corresponding increase in CO and volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions. To account for variability in combustion properties and to 
provide additional compliance strategy options for the regulated 
community, while still providing an equivalent level of environmental 
protection, we are proposing to establish a combined NO<INF>X</INF> and 
CO limit. The combined limit for modified and reconstructed units would 
be 520 ng/J (1.0 lb/MMBtu). This level has been demonstrated as being 
achievable for existing units (see Thermal Dryer Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0260). The combined limit for new sources would be 280 ng/J 
(0.65 lb/MMBtu). For new units, we evaluated what emission limits could 
be achieved by application of BDT for both NO<INF>X</INF> and CO, and 
relied on this evaluation to develop the combined standard. We have 
previously established combined emissions limits for pollutants that 
are inversely related in the NSPS for stationary compression ignition 
internal combustion engines, 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII.
    We continue to be interested in additional NO<INF>X</INF> and CO 
performance test data from thermal dryers and comparable facilities 
using combustion controls to control both NO<INF>X</INF> and CO 
emissions and are also considering, and requesting comment on, a 
combined limit of between 390 ng/J (0.90 lb/MMBtu) and 470 ng/J (1.1 
lb/MMBtu) for modified and reconstructed units and between 200 ng/J 
(0.47 lb/MMBtu) and 300 ng/J (0.70 lb/MMBtu) for new units. In 
addition, we are continuing to consider separate limits and 
specifically request comment on whether a combined limit is 
appropriate.
    To determine the NO<INF>X</INF> and CO emission reductions 
achievable from the application of BDT to thermal dryers, we examined 
the nature of the emissions, demonstrated control technologies, and the 
removal efficiencies of those technologies. NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
from coal thermal dryers primarily occur via two mechanisms. The main 
source, thermal NO<INF>X</INF>, is formed when nitrogen and oxygen in 
the combustion air react at high temperatures. Fuel NO<INF>X</INF> is 
due to the reaction of fuel-bound nitrogen compounds with oxygen. 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions can be minimized through two general control 
strategies: combustion controls and post-combustion controls. 
Combustion controls limit the formation of NO<INF>X</INF>, whereas 
post-combustion controls convert NO<INF>X</INF> to nitrogen and oxygen 
prior to release to the atmosphere. We are not presently aware of any 
coal-fired thermal dryers that use post-combustion controls.
    Post-combustion controls include selective catalytic reduction 
(SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), non-selective 
catalytic reduction (NSCR), and catalytic oxidation/absorption 
(SCONO<INF>X</INF>). For reasons presented in the Thermal Dryer Memo in 
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, none of these control options are 
technically feasible control options for a thermal dryer and they were 
not evaluated as viable control technologies. However, we continue to 
be interested in additional information that would indicate if SNCR 
could be successfully integrated into a new thermal dryer and 
specifically request comment on this issue. At this time, we have 
determined that combustion controls are the only viable NO<INF>X</INF> 
controls identified that could be used across the range of thermal 
dryers presently used in the United States and, thus, we have 
determined that combustion controls constitute BDT for NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions from thermal dryers. Available combustion controls include 
low NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNB), staged combustion, co-firing with 
natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and flue gas 
recirculation (FGR). These control options are described in the Thermal 
Dryer Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260.
    The practical operating range of existing thermal dryers is 
relatively small, and redesign of the thermal dryer would be required 
to obtain significant NO<INF>X</INF> reductions. However, we have 
identified several existing thermal dryers that have demonstrated 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions of less than 0.60 lb/MMBtu. Our analysis 
demonstrates that existing facilities could achieve this limit through 
combustion controls alone.
    Our analysis demonstrates that new thermal dryers could be 
constructed to comply with a NO<INF>X</INF> limit of 170 ng/J (0.40 lb/
MMBtu). Although utility-size units burning bituminous coal can achieve 
NO<INF>X</INF> limits of less than 130 ng/J (0.30 lb/MMBtu), 
NO<INF>X</INF>-reducing technologies for smaller thermal dryers are 
more limited. We reviewed permits issued over the past decade and only 
found NO<INF>X</INF> requirements for boilers less than 250 MMBtu/hr 
for six new comparable small coal-fired boilers. Three were circulating 
fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, a design that is not generally used in 
dryers. Permit conditions for the other three boilers were 110, 170, 
and 300 ng/J (0.25, 0.40, and 0.70 lb/MMBtu). The highest permit limit 
had a corresponding low CO standard, which could explain the unusually 
high NO<INF>X</INF> standard. This NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate could 
be achieved for either a new stoker or pulverized coal-based thermal 
dryer using combustion controls alone. Furthermore, we reviewed data 
developed by State permitting authorities which list combustion 
controls as able to cost effectively achieve over 50 percent reduction 
for coal-fired industrial boilers from an uncontrolled emissions rate 
of 300 ng/J (0.70 lb/MMBtu). The cost per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> 
controlled using combustion controls is less than $2,000 per ton and is 
considered cost effective for this source category.
    CO emissions are intermediate products produced by the incomplete 
combustion of hydrocarbons. The emissions are formed in hot, oxygen-
depleted regions of the combustion chamber and at the edges of the lean 
flame zone where the temperature is lower. Short residence times also 
contribute to CO formation. During

[[Page 25312]]

complete combustion, CO reacts with various oxidants to form carbon 
dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) through recombination reactions. However, 
these recombination reactions cannot proceed to completion if the 
combustion temperature is low or there is a deficient amount of 
oxidants in the combustion gas. VOC emitted from thermal dryers are a 
result of both incomplete fuel combustion and volatile matter released 
from the coal bed as it is heated and dried.
    Controls to minimize both CO and VOC include thermal oxidation and 
flaring, catalytic oxidation, catalytic incineration, and good 
combustion practices. For reasons presented in the Thermal Dryer Memo 
in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, thermal oxidation and flaring, 
catalytic oxidation, and catalytic incineration are not technically 
feasible control options for a thermal dryer, and they were not 
evaluated as viable control technologies. In addition, high levels of 
excess air can be used to control CO emissions and VOC absorbers can be 
used to control VOC emissions. However, high levels of excess air 
increase NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and the PM emissions in a thermal 
dryer exhaust would plug the pores in the absorber bed; therefore, such 
controls are also not considered to be a viable control techniques. For 
these reasons, we conclude that good combustion practices constitute 
BDT for CO emissions from thermal dryers.
    Good combustion practices limit the formation of CO and VOC by 
providing sufficient oxygen in the combustion zone for complete 
combustion to occur. Based on a review of CO emissions rates from 
existing thermal dryers, we are basing the combined NO<INF>X</INF> and 
CO limit on a CO emissions rate of 190 ng/J (0.45 lb/MMBtu) for 
modified and reconstructed thermal dryers. We have identified several 
existing thermal dryers that are achieving this emissions rate with 
combustion controls alone. Because we have not identified a method for 
control of VOC emissions beyond combustion controls, we are not 
proposing a separate limit for VOC emissions. However, by setting an 
emissions limit that contains a CO emissions rate, we are minimizing 
the VOC emissions that result from incomplete combustion. The VOC 
emissions from the coal bed itself are variable, and we concluded that 
we are unable to set a standard that would be achievable for variable 
coal types across the country.
    For new thermal dryers, we concluded that a CO emissions rate of 
110 ng/J (0.25 lb/MMBtu) is the appropriate rate to use as part of the 
basis for the combined NO<INF>X</INF> and CO limit. Although new 
utility-sized units can reduce CO emissions to 0.15 lb/MMBtu, 
technologies are more limited for the smaller thermal dryers. However, 
because new thermal dryers would likely use a gas recirculation design, 
both VOC and CO emissions would be minimized. The exhaust gases would 
be recirculated to the high temperatures of the combustion chamber and 
would oxidize some of the emissions to CO<INF>2</INF> and water. Of the 
three non-CFB permits for small coal-fired boilers, the requirements 
over the past decade were 0.02, 0.21, 0.23 lb/MMBtu. We also reviewed 
information on coal-fired boilers developed for State permitting 
agencies, and the basis limit for CO is consistent with the values 
listed in those references. In addition, we reviewed the CO data 
collected for coal-fired industrial boilers in support of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) section 112 maximum achievable technology (MACT) standards. 
Of the 60 industrial boilers with CO emissions listed in lb/MMBtu, the 
average was 40 ng/J (0.095 lb/MMBtu), and the range was 0.1 to 230 ng/J 
(0.0002 to 0.54 lb/MMBtu). At this time, we do not have the 
corresponding NO<INF>X</INF> emissions data to determine if the low CO 
emissions rates have a corresponding high NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
rate. These data indicate that 92 percent of existing small coal-fired 
boilers are achieving a rate of 110 ng/J (0.25 lb/MMBtu) and 98 percent 
are achieving a rate of 190 ng/J (0.45 lb/MMBtu).

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

    We are proposing standards for a wide variety of coal handling 
equipment. For open storage piles and roadways, we are proposing, 
consistent with CAA section 111(h), to establish work practice 
standards. For other coal handling equipment, including pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment, coal processing and conveying equipment, coal 
storage systems, and transfer and loading systems, we are establishing 
PM and/or opacity emission limits.
1. Open Storage Piles and Roadways
    CAA section 111(h) provides that if, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of 
performance, EPA may among other things, promulgate work practice, 
design, or equipment standards. A determination that the emissions from 
the sources cannot be measured due to technological or economic 
limitations may be used to support a determination that it is not 
feasible to establish standards of performance. 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 make 
the use of Method 9 opacity observations unreasonable in many 
situations. For these reasons, the Administrator is proposing to 
determine that it is not feasible to establish an emissions standard 
for open storage piles or the coal dust associated with roadways. This 
determination would support the proposed work practice standards 
outlined below.
    Based on that proposed determination, we are proposing to establish 
the following work practice standards for open storage piles and coal 
dust from roadways. We propose to require owners/operators of open 
storage piles and roadways associated with coal preparation plants to 
develop and comply with a fugitive dust emissions plan to control 
fugitive PM emissions. These fugitive dust plans would be required to 
contain the elements described below.
    For open storage piles, we are proposing to require the fugitive 
dust plan to prescribe the use of an enclosure, chemical suppressants 
(including encrusting agents), wet suppression, a wind barrier, or a 
vegetative cover to control emissions.
    We are also proposing to require that the fugitive dust plan 
include procedures for limiting emissions from all types of ``coal 
processing and conveying equipment'' at a coal preparation plant. 
Although the source category listing covers the entire coal preparation 
plant, we have not previously established emission limits for all 
facilities located at the plant. Because open storage piles were not 
previously considered affected facilities, unloading and conveying 
operations to an open storage pile were also not regulated. Only 
unloading operations that were directly loaded into receiving equipment 
were subject to an opacity limit. Because we are proposing to include 
open storage piles as an affected facility, the loading, unloading, and 
conveying operations of open storage piles would also be covered under 
the fugitive dust emissions control plan, but not subject to an opacity 
limit.
    Open storage piles also include piles of coal that have been loaded 
into trucks, railcars, and/or ships. At this time, we are not proposing 
to require that the fugitive dust emissions control plan address 
emissions from these piles.

[[Page 25313]]

We identified two potential control options for these piles: covers and 
chemical encrusting agents. However, we have determined it is not 
practical to require these controls. First, the majority of fugitive 
emissions occur while the coal is in transit outside the physical 
boundaries of the coal preparation plant. The emissions from the piles 
while they are at the coal preparation plant have not been shown to be 
significant. Second, it would not be economically feasible to require 
end users to cover the coal or spray chemical suppressants as the coal 
arrives on the property of the owner/operator and then proceed to 
unload the coal.
    We are also proposing to require that the permitting authority 
approve the fugitive dust plans required by this subpart and to grant 
specific authority to the permitting authority to approve alternate 
technologies to control fugitive emissions from open storage piles and 
coal dust from roadways. The permitting authority may approve the use 
of such alternative technologies in the fugitive dust plan if it has 
determined that the approved technology provides equivalent overall 
environmental protection.
    For roadways, we are proposing to require that the fugitive dust 
plan require the owner/operator to pave the roads, wet the road 
surface, sweep up excess coal dust, or install tire washes to remove 
entrained dust to control PM emissions. For roadways that do not leave 
the property (e.g., haul roads at coal mines), the owner/operator of 
the coal preparation plant would not have to include such requirements 
in the fugitive dust plan because of the particular impracticality of, 
for example, paving roadways that are frequently re-routed.
2. Coal Handling Equipment
    In the April 2008 proposal, we concluded that a fabric filter was 
BDT for controlling PM emissions from coal-handling equipment 
processing subbituminous and lignite coals. That determination provided 
the basis for the proposed PM and opacity standards, and also for our 
proposal requiring that coal-handling equipment processing 
subbituminous and lignite coals be vented (i.e., connected to a duct or 
stack) such that a PM performance test could be conducted on the 
contained exhaust gas stream. As discussed more fully in the Coal 
Handling Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, multiple commenters 
disagreed with our BDT determination for several reasons. First, they 
noted that the use of baghouses to collect subbituminous coal dust 
presents potential safety concerns. For this reason alone, the 
commenters argued that EPA should not use a baghouse as the basis for 
the emissions rate. Second, their comments noted that although the use 
of baghouses frequently results in low stack grain loadings, the 
practice of returning the collected dust to the conveyor belt may cause 
potential problems with fine coal dust emissions later in the coal 
handling process, decreasing their overall effectiveness. Finally, 
commenters identified multiple State best available control technology 
(BACT) determinations that allow sources to remove existing baghouses 
and replace them with passive enclosure containment systems (PECS), 
fogging systems, or wet extraction scrubbers. Neither PECS nor fogging 
systems can be vented, so the requirement to conduct a PM performance 
test conflicts with such State BACT determinations.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, we 
have concluded that a baghouse is not the only technology that is BDT 
for coal-handling equipment used on subbituminous and lignite coals. 
Depending on the plant-specific circumstances, all four technologies 
(fabric filters, PECS, fogging systems, and wet extraction scrubbers) 
can control PM emissions equally well. They all provide equivalent 
levels of emissions reductions; in addition, fogging systems, PECS, and 
the wet extraction systems often have lower costs than baghouses. For 
this reason, we are no longer proposing to require that all emissions 
from such facilities be vented and are proposing PM and opacity limits 
for coal-handling operations based on the level of reduction achievable 
by these four technologies.
    In the April 2008 proposal, we also determined that the use of 
chemical suppressants was BDT for coal-handling equipment processing 
bituminous coal. This determination also provided a basis for the 
proposed PM and opacity limits. Multiple commenters disagreed with that 
determination, stating that wet suppression is often used to control 
fugitive PM from coal-handling operations processing bituminous coal 
and that this control approach results in limited visible emissions 
from the operation.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, we 
have reaffirmed our determination that BDT for coal-handling equipment 
processing bituminous coal is the use of chemical suppressants. The 
proposed opacity limit is based on that BDT determination. However, it 
is important to note that although our BDT analysis identifies a 
specific technology as BDT, the actual requirement in the rule is an 
opacity limit, and an owner/operator can use any combination of 
controls at a particular site as long as it demonstrates compliance 
with the opacity limit. The owner/operator is not obligated to use the 
specific technology identified as BDT.
    Since the April 2008 proposal, we have performed an extensive data-
gathering effort for both PM performance test data and opacity 
observations (both Method 9 and Method 22) on recently installed coal-
handling equipment. This data gathering is discussed in more detail in 
the Coal Handling Memo in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260.
    In the April 2008 proposal, we proposed to establish a PM limit of 
0.011 g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf) for coal-handling equipment processing 
subbituminous and lignite coals. We also proposed to require that all 
such equipment vent emissions such that mass PM emissions from the 
facility could be measured. Multiple commenters disagreed with the PM 
limit, saying that it is technically difficult to achieve at some 
locations and is more stringent than the BACT determinations from 
multiple State permitting authorities. In addition, commenters 
suggested we collect more PM emissions data specific to coal handling 
operations.
    As described earlier, we have reconsidered our prior BDT 
determination and are now proposing a determination that any of four 
technologies--fabric filters, PECS, fogging systems, and wet extraction 
scrubbers--may be BDT, and we are establishing PM and opacity limits 
consistent with that determination. Only the fabric filter technology 
and wet extraction scrubbers are typically vented; PECS and fogging 
systems technologies rely on reduced air flow and as such could not be 
used if emissions are vented. Requiring venting of either PECS or 
fogging systems would conflict with the design criteria of both 
approaches. In this proposal, we are proposing to establish both PM and 
opacity limits that would apply to all emissions that are vented, and 
an opacity limit that would apply to all emissions that are not vented.
    Based on our review of public comments and subsequent analysis, we 
are proposing a change from the April 2008 proposed PM limit of 0.011 
g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf) to 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). The PM 
performance test data specific to coal-handling equipment ranged from 
0.001 to 0.011 gr/dscf. Based on the performance test data, we

[[Page 25314]]

have concluded that although 0.011 g/dscm (0.0050 gr/dscf) has been 
shown to be achievable, due to the limited data set, we are not 
convinced that such a limit would be achievable on a long-term basis 
for all affected facilities across the country. However, we have 
concluded that 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) is achievable for all sizes 
of affected facilities and provides an adequate compliance margin to be 
consistently achievable on a long-term basis for control technologies 
that are vented through a stack. As shown in docket entries EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0260-0003.1 (``Discussion of Particulate Matter Control Concepts 
for Coal Handling NSPS'') and -0035.1 (``Comments of the Utility Air 
Regulatory Group''), this standard is also consistent with the majority 
of recently issued permits.
    We continue to be interested in additional performance test data 
from recently installed fabric filters and wet extraction scrubbers and 
are requesting comment on a PM standard of 0.020 g/dscm to 0.025 g/dscm 
(0.0090 gr/dscf to 0.011 gr/dscf) for the final rule. All the PM 
performance test data collected for this supplemental proposal show 
emissions equal to or less than 0.025 g/dscm (0.011 gr/dscf). However, 
the source with the highest PM emissions concentration has permit 
requirements in lb/hr of PM emissions and the design emissions rate of 
those fabric filters is unclear. All of the other PM performance test 
data, including the individual tests runs, are below 0.020 g/dscm 
(0.0090 gr/dscf).
    In the April 2008 proposal, we proposed to amend the opacity limit 
for coal-handling equipment from the existing 1976 limit of less than 
20 percent to less than 5 percent. Multiple commenters opposed that 
proposal for several reasons. First, the data used for the proposal 
were largely based on data collected from the nonmetallic minerals 
processing industry. In addition, commenters noted that because 
individual Method 9 opacity observations are made in increments of 5 
percent, a less than 5 percent opacity limit would mean that the 
presence of any visible emissions would result in a violation. 
Commenters asserted that it would be difficult to guarantee that each 
affected facility will operate with no visible emissions at all times. 
Also, because the proposed standard is based on a 6-minute reading, 
there would be no opportunity for an owner/operator to fix a problem 
prior to being in violation of the standard. Further, because opacity 
from fugitive sources is more difficult to measure than from point 
sources, they argued that the less than 5 percent limit was 
unreasonable.
    It is important to note that the April 2008 proposed limit of less 
than 5 percent opacity is not the same as a no visible emissions limit. 
A Method 9 performance test is conducted by taking one or more sets of 
24 observations at 15-second intervals over a 6-minute period. Each 
observation is reported in 5 percent increments. The 6-minute average 
is calculated by averaging all observations made over the 6-minute 
period. Thus, a 6-minute average based on both 0 and 5 percent opacity 
readings (or higher), would not exceed the 5 percent standard as long 
as the average is less than 5 percent. In contrast, a ``no visible 
emissions'' limit for a Method 9 performance test would require all 
opacity readings to be 0 percent.
    Nonetheless, based on our review of public comments and subsequent 
analysis, in this supplemental proposal we are proposing to change the 
opacity limit for all subpart Y coal-handling facilities to no greater 
than 5 percent. We gathered data on coal-handling operations at 25 coal 
preparation plants, and the reported highest 6-minute average opacity 
reading was 5 percent for a recently installed facility. Therefore, we 
have concluded that this is an appropriate opacity limit for new 
sources.
    We are also specifically requesting comment on whether an opacity 
limit of less than 10 percent is more appropriate than a limit of no 
greater than 5 percent. The data we collected were primarily from 
initial compliance tests, and we are requesting 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, including 
windy dry periods, and whether the limit provides an adequate 
compliance margin. We are also requesting comment on establishing 
different opacity limits for each type of coal-handling operation.
    Finally, we are proposing to require periodic Method 9 performance 
tests to assure compliance with the no greater than 5 percent standard. 
However, to create an incentive for sources to operate with minimal 
visible emissions (visible emissions readings less than 5 percent of 
the time using Method 22) whenever possible, we are proposing to allow 
owners/operators of facilities with the most recent Method 9 
performance test of 3 percent or less opacity to qualify for reduced 
monitoring requirements. Owners/operators of affected facilities 
operating with minimal visible emissions would be able to elect to 
perform periodic short opacity observations using Method 22 as an 
alternative to Method 9 performance tests. Facilities with visible 
emissions would have to perform periodic Method 9 performance tests 
and, therefore, would have an incentive to operate without visible 
emissions. We believe it is important to provide these incentives 
because the data we have gathered suggest that many affected facilities 
should be able to operate with zero opacity much of the time if they 
are being properly operated and maintained.

E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

    In the April 2008 proposal, we proposed to require initial and 
annual PM performance testing for each subpart Y affected facility with 
an emissions limit. After further consideration, and for the reasons 
explained below, we have concluded that it would be more appropriate to 
require testing every other year of affected facilities operating at 50 
percent or less of the applicable limit and reduced testing 
requirements for facilities with relatively low potential emissions.
    Reducing the frequency of compliance testing from annual to every 
other year for owner/operators of affected facilities operating at 50 
percent or less of the applicable limit both reduces compliance costs 
and could provide benefits to the environment by recognizing the 
environmental benefit of owners/operators installing controls beyond 
what is required by the NSPS. By reducing monitoring requirements, we 
are recognizing the increased environmental benefit of control 
equipment that is both designed and operated in such a manner to exceed 
the new source performance requirements and are incentivizing the 
development of improved control technology. Also, if an affected 
facility is tested as operating well below the standard, there is less 
of a chance of exceeding the limit.
    For smaller facilities with lower potential emissions, we have 
concluded the cost of the testing proposed in the April 2008 proposal 
is not justified by the information that would be gained from the 
testing. In addition, we are not aware of an economically feasible way 
to measure PM emissions from vent filters. Vent filters are typically 
smaller than 2,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), and the 
exemption for affected facilities with potential emissions of less than 
1.0 Mg (1.1 tons) equates to 2,800 standard cubic feet per minute 
(scfm) at a design emissions rate of 0.010 gr/dscf. Furthermore, 
smaller baghouses often do not come equipped with sampling access. It 
would cost approximately $6,000 to add sampling

[[Page 25315]]

ports and sampling platforms to each baghouse. Considering that 
baghouse operations are often intermittent, potential emissions from 
deterioration over time are expected to be low. Instead of requiring 
annual performance tests, we are proposing to require that each 
baghouse be monitored for visible emissions on an ongoing basis. We 
have concluded that these visual observations should detect significant 
problems such as holes and tears in the filter medium or if the filter 
becomes unseated. Under these circumstances, visible emissions will 
increase dramatically because part of the exhaust gas is emitted 
directly to the atmosphere without any emissions reduction, resulting 
in readily apparent visible emissions.
    Similarly, for an owner/operator of up to five affected facilities 
of the same type using identical control equipment with potential 
annual emissions of less than 10 Mg each at a coal preparation plant, 
we are proposing to allow a performance test on a single affected 
facility as a check on the compliance of all of the affected facilities 
with the emissions standard. We are allowing this option only where 
performance test results are 90 percent of the standard, the design 
emissions rate of the control device is less than or equal to the 
applicable emission limit, and each affected facility is tested at 
least once every 5 years. The facilities must perform the applicable 
ongoing monitoring, and adhere to manufacturer's recommended 
maintenance procedures. We concluded that for these sources the test 
results at one control device will likely be representative of other 
similar control devices, and that the additional compliance costs 
associated with testing each affected facility would not result in 
significant emissions reductions.
    We are proposing to require bag leak detection systems for large 
baghouses. We considered, but decided against, requiring installation 
and use of a bag leak detection system at each affected facility using 
a fabric filter to control PM. These detectors are useful and effective 
for early detection of bag leaks; however, the capital costs of a bag 
leak detection system can be as much as $24,000 and the annualized 
costs might be as much as $7,000 (including capital recovery). These 
costs are considered unjustifiably high for smaller baghouses with low 
potential emissions at subpart Y affected facilities. Because potential 
PM emissions from a bag leak are more significant for larger baghouses, 
we are proposing to require a bag leak detection system for owners/
operators of baghouses with a potential annual emissions rate of 25 Mg 
(28 tons) or more. This equates to a baghouse of approximately 70,000 
scfm with a design emissions rate of 0.010 gr/dscf, or 140,000 scfm 
with a design emissions rate of 0.0050 gr/dscf.

F. Selection of Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Pneumatic Coal-
Cleaning Equipment, Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal 
Storage Systems, and Transfer and Loading System

    In the April 2008 proposal, we proposed to require three 1-hour 
Method 22 observations to monitor for visible emissions at all coal-
handling affected facilities. With this approach an owner/operator 
could perform the initial readings on the first day of the month and 
not perform a subsequent observation for 30 days. When a control device 
is operating properly there should be minimal visible emissions and a 
1-hour observation would not provide any significant additional useful 
information than a 10-minute observation. In addition, allowing 
extended periods of operation between observations could allow as much 
as 30 days before a malfunctioning piece of control equipment is 
identified. Therefore, we have concluded it is appropriate to decrease 
the length of each observation to a minimum of 10 minutes, but to 
increase the frequency to daily observations. By taking more frequent 
observations, we assure that control equipment is consistently well 
operated.

G. Required Electronic Reporting

    We are also proposing to require owners/operators to submit 
compliance test data electronically to EPA. Compliance test data are 
necessary for compliance determinations and for EPA to conduct 8-year 
reviews of CAA section 111 standards. The data are also used for many 
other purposes such as developing emission factors and determining 
annual emission rates. In conducting 8-year reviews, EPA has found it 
burdensome and time-consuming to collect emission test data because the 
data are often stored at varied locations through differing storage 
methods. One improvement in recent years is the availability of stack 
test reports in electronic format as a replacement for paper copies. 
The proposed option to submit source test data electronically to EPA 
would not require any additional performance testing. In addition, when 
a facility submits performance test data to WebFIRE, there would be no 
additional requirements for data compilation; instead, we believe 
industry would greatly benefit from improved emissions factors, fewer 
information requests, and better regulation development as discussed 
below. Because the information that would be reported is already 
required in the existing test methods and is necessary to evaluate 
conformance to the test method, facilities would already be collecting 
and compiling these data. One major advantage of electing to submit 
source test data through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which was 
developed with input from stack testing companies (who already collect 
and compile performance test data electronically), is that it would 
provide a standardized method to compile and store all the 
documentation required by this rule. Another important benefit of 
submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted 
is that it will substantially reduce the effort involved in data 
collection activities in the future. Specifically, because we would 
already have adequate source category data to conduct NSPS reviews, 
there would be fewer data collection requests (e.g., letters issued 
under the authority of CAA section 114). This results in a reduced 
burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to 
respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and 
distributing data collection requests). Finally, another benefit of 
electronic data submission is that these data will greatly improve the 
overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing 
the pool of emissions test data upon which a particular emission factor 
is based, and by ensuring that the data are more representative of 
current industry operational procedures. A common complaint from 
industry and regulators is that emissions factors are outdated or not 
representative of a particular source category. Additional performance 
tests results would ensure that emissions factors are updated more 
frequently and are more accurate. In summary, receiving the test data 
already collected for other purposes and using them in the emissions 
factors development program will save industry, State/local/tribal 
agencies, and EPA time and money.
    Data would be submitted electronically to the EPA database WebFIRE, 
which is a Web site accessible through the EPA TTN. The WebFIRE Web 
site was constructed to store emissions test data for use in developing 
emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database can be found at 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. The ERT is an 
interface program that transmits the

[[Page 25316]]

electronic report through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for 
storage in the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is not the only 
electronic interface that can be used to submit source test data to the 
CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it is the most straightforward and easy way 
to submit data. A description of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. The ERT can be used to 
document the conduct of stack tests data for various pollutants, 
including PM (EPA Method 5 in appendix A-3), SO<INF>2</INF> (EPA Method 
6C in appendix A-4), NO<INF>X</INF> (EPA Method 7E in appendix A-4), CO 
(EPA Method 10 in appendix A-4), cadmium (Cd) (EPA Method 29 in 
appendix A-8), lead (Pb) (Method 29), mercury (Hg) (Method 29), and 
hydrogen chloride (HCl) (EPA Method 26A in appendix A-8). The ERT does 
not currently accept opacity data or CEMS data.

H. Addition of Petroleum Coke and Coal Refuse to the Definition of Coal

    Petroleum coke and coal refuse are useful boiler fuels, have 
similar PM emissions as primary coals, and the same equipment is used 
to control PM emissions from the handling of primary coals, petroleum 
coke, and coal refuse. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the 
definition of coal in subpart Y to include petroleum coke and coal 
refuse (after May 27, 2009). The standards in the original 1976 subpart 
Y were based on data from coal preparation plants processing bituminous 
coal at mines. However, the original applicability of subpart Y was 
intentionally broad, and covered processing of all coal ranks and coal 
processing at end-user locations (owner/operators of boilers, coke 
ovens, etc.), as the mechanical processing of coal is the same 
regardless of location.
    Petroleum coke, a carbonaceous material, is a by-product residual 
from the thermal cracking of heavy residual oil during the petroleum 
refining process. Petroleum coke has a superior heating value and low 
ash content compared to coal. However, depending on the original crude 
feedstock, it may contain greater concentrations of sulfur and metals, 
making it less attractive as a boiler fuel. Historically, petroleum 
coke has been priced at a discount compared to coal. Because of the 
increased use of heavier crudes and more efficient processing of 
refinery residuals, U.S. and worldwide production of petroleum coke is 
increasing and is expected to continue to grow.
    Coal refuse, a by-product of coal mining and cleaning operations, 
is generally a high ash (non-combustible rock), low Btu material. It is 
cost-prohibitive to transport because of the weight per amount of 
energy that can be extracted, and is usually burned close to the point 
of generation. Large volumes of coal refuse began to accumulate at 
mining sites when mining first began in the Appalachians in the 1970s. 
Current mining operations continue to generate coal refuse; estimates 
show that up to 1 billion tons of coal refuse were generated in 2007 
alone. When subpart Y was originally published in 1976, there was no 
way to cost-effectively dispose of coal refuse. Also, laws requiring 
the stabilization and reclamation of mining sites were not established 
until the late 1970s, after subpart Y was originally promulgated. After 
the late 1970s, mining operations began to process coal refuse. With 
the development of fluidized beds, it is burned for energy and is used 
for other non-combustion products.
    Petroleum coke can be interchanged with primary coals in pulverized 
coal boilers, fluidized beds, and stoker boilers. Coal refuse can be 
substituted for primary coals in fluidized beds and stoker boilers. 
Petroleum coke and coal refuse are burned in the same boilers as 
primary coals at the coal preparation plant and are processed alongside 
the primary coals. The health impacts of PM from petroleum coke and 
primary coals are similar; coverage of petroleum coke would therefore 
further protect public health.
    The approach proposed is consistent with subparts Db and Dc, the 
large and small industrial boiler NSPS. Both subparts include petroleum 
coke and coal refuse under the definition of coal. Subpart Da, the 
utility boiler NSPS, was published prior to the industrial boiler NSPS, 
and only includes coal refuse in the definition of coal. At the time 
subpart Da was promulgated, petroleum coke was not considered to be 
``created for the purpose of creating useful heat'' and hence was not 
used in the fossil fuel capacity as it is today.

I. Additional Amendments

    We are proposing to change the title of subpart Y to more 
accurately reflect the affected facilities subject to subpart Y. The 
original applicability included affected facilities that some in the 
regulated community term ``processing'' facilities and would not call 
those operations ``preparation'' even though the original rulemaking 
used ``preparation'' more broadly. The revision is strictly intended to 
clarify the rule and not change the applicability.
    The definitional amendments and additional amendments are intended 
to implement aspects of the rule discussed earlier and to update the 
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods for the 
different coal ranks. Also, because cyclonic flow is not used in 
subpart Y, its removal would not impact the rule.
    We have concluded that it is not appropriate or beneficial to the 
public health to require an affected facility that is not currently in 
operation to start up to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS. 
Commencing operation strictly for the purposes of demonstrating 
compliance is an unnecessary cost and increases emissions.

J. Emissions Reductions

    EPA believes that the proposed amendments would not significantly 
impact the overall compliance costs estimated for the original 
proposal, $3 million, and would continue to have an insignificant 
economic impact. However, EPA acknowledges that the overall emissions 
reductions that would result from the proposed amendments and 
associated costs of control are difficult to quantify precisely in 
advance.
    For thermal dryers and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment, the 
proposed amendments would significantly tighten control requirements. 
Because these controls apply to new sources not yet in operation, it is 
difficult to quantify the aggregated emissions reductions or costs for 
those reductions in advance. However, we anticipate that there will be 
only a limited number of new sources with thermal dryers or pneumatic 
coal-cleaning equipment, so the overall costs associated with the 
proposed amendments will likewise be limited. As to benefits, EPA 
believes that the proposed amendments are necessary because they would 
help to protect the public health and the environment by assuring that 
appropriate controls would be installed on future new thermal dryers 
and pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment should any be built.
    The proposed pneumatic coal-cleaning PM standard is 40 percent 
lower than the existing standard. For thermal dryers, the proposed PM 
standard is one-third of the existing limit. The proposed 
SO<INF>2</INF> standard and combined NO<INF>X</INF>-CO standard for 
these sources would reduce emissions by 50 percent from current 
uncontrolled levels. For the model thermal dryer used in the costing 
analysis, this equates to estimated annual reductions of 100 tons each 
of PM and SO<INF>2</INF> and 200 tons of combined NO<INF>X</INF> and 
CO.
    For coal handling operations, the proposed amendments would reduce

[[Page 25317]]

the current opacity standard from less than 20 percent to no greater 
than 5 percent. The proposal would thus reduce the opacity standard by 
75 percent. Opacity is an indirect means to address the presence of PM 
emissions and not an actual direct measurement of the mass of PM 
emissions. Thus, in order to determine the precise amount of PM 
reductions that would be associated with this change in the opacity 
standard, we would need actual baseline PM emissions data at 20 percent 
opacity for a source, which are not available. Without these data, it 
is not possible for us to calculate the precise amount of PM reductions 
associated with the more stringent opacity limit with a high degree of 
certainty. We know, however, that lowering opacity from an affected 
facility generally results in a reduction in PM emissions, provided 
particle characteristics and size distribution remain similar for that 
facility.
    The existing subpart Y standards for coal handling equipment 
include only an opacity limit. The proposed amendments would establish 
a new PM standard of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) that would apply to 
all sources that are mechanically vented. At this time we, only expect 
end users processing bituminous coal to mechanically vent affected 
facilities, and, thus, only these facilities would be subject to the 
proposed new PM limit. Under the existing NSPS, affected facilities 
that are mechanically vented would already need to install some type of 
control device to comply with the 20 percent opacity limit. For coal 
handling facilities that are mechanically vented, EPA believes that a 
baghouse is the lowest cost option. If we assume that in the absence of 
the proposed revisions such affected facilities would have installed 
baghouses with an emissions limit equivalent to that of the pneumatic 
coal-cleaning equipment (0.040 g/dscm), the proposed amendments reduce 
emissions by an additional 40 percent. For the model bituminous power 
plant used in the costing analysis, this equates to approximately 5 
tons of PM reductions annually.
    Based on public comment on the proposed amendments, we believe that 
the majority of new coal handling operations at mines are likely to be 
fugitive dust sources because they do not vent to a baghouse. In 
addition, end user locations that process subbituminous coal are moving 
toward PECS and fogging systems and would also be classified as 
fugitive dust sources. In both cases, only the opacity standard would 
apply. Thus, the aggregate costs of the new PM standard would be 
limited.
    Subpart Y has not been revised since it was originally promulgated 
in 1976 and many States have more stringent control requirements. We 
believe it is appropriate to consider these existing State requirements 
when determining what is an appropriate baseline to compare against the 
proposed amendments. The majority of State permitting authorities that 
have more stringent control requirements require controls and work 
practice standards that maintain opacity well below 20 percent. In 
addition, any coal preparation plant that is subject to New Source 
Review (NSR) would also already have control requirements significantly 
more stringent than the existing NSPS. Therefore, EPA believes that 
additional costs resulting from the proposed amendments should be 
negligible for these affected facilities, and recognizes that 
additional emissions reductions from such sources would be lower as 
well.

IV. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

    Existing affected facilities at coal preparation plants that are 
modified or reconstructed after the date on which standards applicable 
to the facility are proposed are subject to the standard as finalized. 
In revising the standards in subpart Y, we have considered whether 
existing facilities that are reconstructed or modified will be able to 
achieve the new standards. Where appropriate, we have proposed 
different standards for new, modified, and reconstructed facilities. We 
are not proposing any amendments to existing law regarding how a 
facility would conduct the modification and reconstruction analysis.

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

    In setting NSPS, 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 
have concluded that the supplemental proposal adds additional 
compliance options and does not increase control costs or recordkeeping 
and reporting costs above those of the April 2008 proposal. The April 
2008 proposal economic impact analysis still holds; the amendments 
would result in 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 to 
NSPS subpart Y. All significant comments received will be considered in 
the development and selection of the final rule. We specifically 
solicit comments on additional amendments that are under consideration. 
These potential amendments are described below.

1. Control Technologies for Controlling Emissions From Thermal Dryers

    No new thermal dryers have been installed at bituminous coal mines 
in the past decade, and as described previously, we have concluded that 
a new thermal dryer would likely use gas recirculation instead of a 
once-through design. Although present coal-fired thermal dryer designs 
use either stoker or pulverized coal burners, we are requesting comment 
on the cost and whether it would be technically feasible to use a 
fluidized bed design to generate the heat for the drying process. We 
are also requesting comment on whether SNCR could be successfully 
applied at a new thermal dryer for control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. 
If either of these control technologies is determined to be possible 
for a new thermal dryer, we will consider basing the combined 
NO<INF>X</INF> and CO, and SO<INF>2</INF> limits for new thermal dryers 
on the use of these controls. Fluidized beds use limestone injection 
into the bed and can reduce potential SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by over 
90 percent; SNCR reduces NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by as much as 50 
percent.
    We are also requesting comment on whether it would be appropriate 
to set separate SO<INF>2</INF> emissions standards for new, 
reconstructed, and modified thermal dryers depending on whether the 
dryer is a once-through design. As described earlier, once-though 
dryers typically use scrubbers to control PM emissions and could 
concurrently control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 90 percent or more. If 
we decide to set separate standards for once-through and recirculation 
dryers, the once-through

[[Page 25318]]

SO<INF>2</INF> limit for new, reconstructed, and modified thermal 
dryers would be changed to 85 ng/J (0.20 lb/MMBtu), or 90 percent 
reduction in potential emissions and 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/MMBtu). The 
corresponding definition of a once-through thermal dryer would be a 
thermal dryer that does not recirculate any flue gas back to the 
furnace for temperature tempering. We request comment on this 
definition, as well as the standard discussed above.
    In addition, we are requesting comment on establishing separate 
SO<INF>2</INF> limits based on the heat input capacity of the thermal 
dryer. For thermal dryers with heat input capacities of 250 MMBtu/hr or 
greater the incremental costs of scrubbers for the sole purpose of 
reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions is approximately $3,500 per ton and 
is considered cost effective for this source category. If we decide to 
set separate standards for larger thermal dryers, the large thermal 
dryer SO<INF>2</INF> limit for new, reconstructed, and modified thermal 
dryers would be changed to 85 ng/J (0.20 lb/MMBtu), or 90 percent 
reduction in potential emissions and 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/MMBtu).

2. PM Standard

    We are considering, and requesting comment on, setting a more 
stringent PM limit for operations with a high volume of air vented from 
the affected facility. Larger control devices are more cost effective, 
and we are specifically requesting comment on setting the PM limit for 
coal handling and pneumatic coal cleaning equipment operations venting 
more than 2,000 dscm/min (70,000 dscf/min) at 0.012 g/dscm (0.0054 gr/
dscf). Two-thirds of the post 1995 PM performance test results we 
collected were below this limit, and those that were not had a lb/hr 
limit and not a concentration limit and the design criteria for those 
fabric filters are unknown.

3. Rear Truck Dumps

    The physical size and operation characteristics of rear truck dumps 
make operation with low instantaneous opacity difficult to achieve. 
Several western subbituminous mining operations that began operation in 
the late 1970s and early 1980s originally used enclosures and fabric 
filters to control PM emissions from rear truck dumps. It was the only 
viable technology at the time, but while PM and opacity emissions from 
the fabric filter stack were relatively low, overall capture and 
control were not as high. With the advent of larger coal trucks and 
stilling sheds, the State of Wyoming has allowed for the replacement of 
enclosures that are vented to a fabric filter with stilling sheds. 
Stilling sheds provide a fairly high level of PM control. However, the 
coal is dumped rapidly and there are instantaneous periods of high 
opacity even when the 6-minute opacity is low. The State of Wyoming 
determines if the still shed is working properly by averaging the 
highest instantaneous 15-second opacity of 10 truck dumps. As long as 
the average instantaneous opacity is less than 20 percent, the stilling 
shed is determined to be operating properly. We are requesting comment 
on whether requiring an annual average instantaneous opacity from 10 
truck dumps is appropriate as an alternate to the Method 22 monitoring 
required for other affected facilities.

4. Opacity Monitoring

    A single coal preparation plant can contain multiple similar 
affected facilities using similar control equipment configurations. To 
reduce the burden of the rulemaking while still maintaining an 
equivalent level of environmental protection, we are requesting comment 
on allowing the permitting authority to approve a single Method 22 
observation as sufficient monitoring for up to 4 other similar affected 
facilities if the owner/operator agrees to site-specific equipment 
inspection and maintenance procedures approved by the permitting 
authority. If we include this approach in the final rule, the owner/
operator would have to observe a different affected facility in the 
group each week and would still be required to conduct at least monthly 
observations for each piece of equipment.

5. Thermal Dryer Monitoring

    We are requesting comment on several of the monitoring requirements 
for thermal dryers. First, owner/operators of thermal dryers are 
required to continuously monitor the temperature of the gas stream at 
the exit of the thermal dryer. We are requesting comment on the utility 
of collecting this information. If we determine this requirement could 
be eliminated without risk of a significant increase in emissions, we 
will consider eliminating this requirement.
    Second, subpart Y requires owner/operators of wet scrubbers to 
continuously monitor the pressure drop through the venturi constriction 
and the water supply pressure. However, there are no requirements 
specified in the rule to maintain these values within a specified 
range, nor requirements regarding what averaging period should be used 
when determining the appropriate value. We are considering, and 
requesting comment on, adding requirements that pressure drop and water 
pressure be maintained at a minimum of 90 percent of the values 
recorded during the most recent performance test, and that an operating 
day average be used to determine the values.
    Next, we are requesting comment on whether it is appropriate to 
replace the water supply pressure monitoring requirement with a 
requirement to monitor and maintain the water flow rate as determined 
from the most recent performance test.
    Finally, because we are adding additional standards for thermal 
dryers we are considering, and requesting comment on, possible 
monitoring requirements for SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and CO. We 
request comment on requiring CEMS for monitoring SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and CO emissions. If we do require CEMS, we would use 
the same numerical emissions rate but the averaging period would be 30 
days. We also request comment on alternative continuous monitoring 
options. In the event we do not require CEMS, we would require other 
continuous monitoring and require that the relevant parameters are 
maintained within 10 percent of the value recorded during the 
performance test on an operating day average. With regard to monitoring 
for SO<INF>2</INF>, we are also considering, and requesting comment on, 
whether pH and water flow rate monitoring are appropriate for owner/
operators of thermal dryers with a wet scrubber. In addition, for 
owner/operators of thermal dryers without a wet scrubber, we are 
considering, and requesting comment on, whether reagent injection flow 
rate and airflow rate are the appropriate monitoring parameters. For 
NO<INF>X</INF> and CO, we are considering, and requesting comment on, 
requiring an O<INF>2</INF> monitor prior to temperature tempering to 
verify that the appropriate air-to-fuel ratio is maintained.

6. Opacity Standard for Open Storage Piles and Roadways

    We are considering, and requesting comment on, both the feasibility 
of establishing an opacity standard for open storage piles and roadways 
and what opacity standard would be appropriate.

7. Work Practice Standards for Haul Roads

    As an alternative to our proposal to exempt an owner/operator of 
roadways that do not leave the property of the affected facility from 
work practice standards directly, we request comment

[[Page 25319]]

on whether permitting authorities should be required to include other 
fugitive dust prevention measures (e.g., wetting of the road surface, 
sweeping of excess dust, tire washes) in the fugitive dust plan for 
such roadways.

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 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 associated with the April 
2008 proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the 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. Because this supplemental proposal does not result 
in additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, a new ICR 
document was not prepared.
    The 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.
    The 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 this action 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. Because OMB 
is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after May 27, 2009, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by June 26, 2009. 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

    This 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 and monitoring costs of the proposed 
amendments, compared to a baseline of no control, at year five is $2 
million. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This 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.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 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

[[Page 25320]]

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

    This 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 facilities owned by an Indian tribe. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action 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 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. 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. 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 proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes 
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 proposes 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 proposed rulemaking. The use of these VCS would be 
impractical because they do not meet the objectives of the standards 
cited in this proposed rule. The search and review results are in the 
docket for this rule.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.

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

    EO 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: May 15, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
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:
    a. By revising paragraph (a)(13);
    b. By removing paragraph (a)(14);
    c. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(15) through (a)(93) as 
paragraphs (a)(14) through (a)(92); and
    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

[[Page 25321]]

Sec. 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 and 
Processing Plants

Sec.
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 system, and coal transfer system operations.
60.255 Performance tests and other compliance requirements.
60.256 Continuous monitoring requirements.
60.257 Test methods and procedures.
60.258 Reporting and recordkeeping.


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 and processing plants 
which process more than 181 megagrams (Mg) (200 tons) per day of coal: 
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 Clean Air Act (Act) and in subpart A of this 
part.
    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).
    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 D388 (incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17).
    Coal for units constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before 
May 27, 2009 means all solid fossil fuels classified as anthracite, 
bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by ASTM D388 (incorporated by 
reference-see Sec.  60.17). For units constructed, reconstructed, or 
modified after May 27, 2009, coal means all solid fossil fuels 
classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by ASTM 
D388 (incorporated by reference-see Sec.  60.17), coal refuse, and 
petroleum coke.
    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.
    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 refuse means debris product of coal mining or coal preparation 
and processing operations (e.g., culm, gob, boney, slate dumps, etc.) 
containing coal, matrix material, clay, and other organic and inorganic 
material.
    Coal storage system for units constructed, reconstructed, or 
modified on or before May 27, 2009 means any facility used to store 
coal except for open storage piles. For units constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009, coal storage system 
means any facility used to store coal.
    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)).
    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 either subpart Da, Db, or Dc 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 
either subpart Da, Db, or Dc of this part, then the furnace and the 
associated emissions are part of the affected facility.
    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).
    Mechanical vent means a vent using a powered mechanical drive 
(machine) to induce air flow.
    Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the 
following midnight during which and 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.
    Petroleum Coke also known as petcoke means a carbonization product 
of high-boiling hydrocarbon fractions obtained in petroleum processing 
(heavy residues). Petroleum coke is typically derived from oil refinery 
coker units or other cracking processes.
    Pneumatic coal-cleaning equipment for units constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified on or before May 27, 2009 means any facility 
which classifies bituminous coal by size or separates bituminous coal 
from refuse by application of air stream(s). For units constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after May 27, 2009, pneumatic coal-cleaning 
equipment means any facility which classifies coal by size or separates 
coal from refuse by application of air stream(s).
    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.
    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).
    Thermal dryer for units constructed, reconstructed, or modified on 
or before May 27, 2009 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. For units constructed, reconstructed, 
or modified after May 27, 2009, thermal dryer means any facility in 
which the moisture content of coal is reduced by either contact with a 
heated gas stream which

[[Page 25322]]

is exhausted to the atmosphere or through indirect heating of the coal 
through contact with a heated heat transfer medium.
    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) 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, 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), and combined nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) and carbon monoxide (CO) as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (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.
    (i) For each thermal dryer constructed 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 reconstructed after April 28, 2008, the 
owner or operator must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) 
and (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (A) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases that contain PM in 
excess of 0.045 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf); and
    (B) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases that exhibit 20 percent 
opacity or greater.
    (iii) For each thermal dryer modified after April 28, 2008, the 
owner or operator must meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(A) and (b)(1)(iii)(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) For each thermal dryer constructed, reconstructed, or modified 
after May 27, 2009, the owner or operator must meet the requirements 
for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of 
this section, except for indirect thermal dryers where the source of 
the heat is subject to either subpart Da, Db, or Dc of this part.
    (i) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases that contain 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> in excess of 520 ng/J (1.20 lb/MMBtu) heat input or 
exceed 50 percent of the potential combustion concentration (i.e., 
achieve at least a 50 percent reduction of the potential combustion 
concentration and do not exceed a maximum emissions rate of 1.2 lb/
MMBtu (520 ng/J)).
    (3) The owner or operator must meet the requirements for combined 
NO<INF>X</INF> and CO emissions in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this 
section, as applicable to the affected facility, except for indirect 
thermal dryers where the source of the heat is subject to either 
subpart Da, Db, or Dc of this part.
    (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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and CO in excess of 430 ng/J (1.0 lb/
MMBtu) heat input.


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 of 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 system, and coal transfer system operations.

    (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

[[Page 25323]]

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) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the affected facility any gases which exhibit greater 
than 5 percent opacity.
    (2) The owner or operator must not cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any mechanical vent at the facility gases which contain 
particulate matter in excess of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf).
    (3) The owner or operator must control fugitive coal dust emissions 
from fugitive sources at the facility by operating according to a 
written fugitive emissions control plan that has been approved by the 
permitting authority. The fugitive emissions control plan must address 
the fugitive emissions sources specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this 
section, as applicable to the affected facility, and include the 
information specified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The fugitive emissions control plan must address each of the 
fugitive emissions sources listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through 
(C) of this section that are located at the facility.
    (A) Open storage piles used for storage of coal.
    (B) Roadways associated with and within the same contiguous 
property as the coal preparation and processing plant.
    (C) Other site-specific sources of fugitive emissions that the 
Administrator or permitting authority determines need to be included in 
your fugitive emissions control plan.
    (ii) The fugitive emissions control plan must describe the control 
measures the owner or operator shall use to minimize fugitive emissions 
from each source addressed in the plan, and explain how the measures 
are applicable and appropriate for the site conditions. For open 
storage piles, the fugitive emissions plan must specify how one or more 
of the following control measures will be used to minimize 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, use of a wind barrier, 
or use of a vegetative cover. For roadways, the fugitive emissions plan 
must specify how one or more of the following control measures will be 
used to minimize fugitive dust: paving, sweeping excess coal dust, 
wetting of the road surface, or tire washes. The permitting authority 
may approve a fugitive emissions plan that includes control 
technologies other than those specified above only if the owner or 
operator has demonstrated to the Administrator that the alternate 
control technology will provide equivalent overall environmental 
protection or if it has determined to the Administrator that it is 
either economically or technically infeasible for the affected facility 
to use the control options specifically identified in this paragraph.
    (iii) If the owner or operator of the affected facility is part of 
a source which is subject to title V permitting, then the requirement 
for the owner or operator to operate according to a written fugitive 
emissions control plan which has been approved by the permitting 
authority must be incorporated into the title V operating permit for 
the source. Additionally, a copy of the fugitive emissions control plan 
must be submitted to the permitting authority 90 days prior to the 
compliance date for the affected facility. Any revisions to the 
fugitive emissions control plan are not effective until approved by the 
permitting authority. All of the requirements in this paragraph are to 
be specified in any title V permit which covers the affected facility.


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, SO<INF>2</INF>, or 
combined NO<INF>X</INF> and CO emissions standard, an initial 
performance test must be performed except as provided for in paragraph 
(d) of this section. Thereafter, a new performance test must be 
conducted according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 
(ii) 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 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 the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable, 
except as provided for in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
    (i) If the maximum 15-second opacity reading in the most recent 
performance test is greater than 5 percent, a new performance test must 
be conducted within 7 operating days of the date that the previous 
performance test was required to be completed.
    (ii) If the maximum 15-second opacity reading in the most recent 
performance test is 5 percent, a new performance test must be conducted 
within 30 operating days of the date that the previous performance test 
was required to be completed.
    (iii) If no visible emissions are observed in the most recent 
performance test, a new performance test must be conducted within 120 
operating days of the date of the previous performance test was 
required to be completed.
    (iv) An owner or operator of affected facilities continuously 
monitoring scrubber parameters as specified in Sec.  60.256 is exempt 
from the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) if opacity 
performance tests are conducted concurrently (or within a 60-minute 
period) with PM performance tests.
    (c) An owner or operator of an affected facility subject to a PM

[[Page 25324]]

emission standard (other than a thermal dryer) that uses a control 
device with a design control 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 following conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) of this section. This exemption does not apply to thermal 
dryers.
    (1) The design emissions limit is less than or equal to the 
applicable PM emissions standard and the results of the most recent 
performance test were less than or equal to the applicable limit,
    (2) The control device manufacturer's recommended maintenance 
procedures are followed, and
    (3) The monitoring requirements in paragraphs (e) or (f) of this 
section are followed.
    (d) An owner or operator of a group of up to five of the same type 
of affected facilities that are subject to PM emissions standards and 
use identical control devices each with a design potential PM emissions 
rate of 10 Mg (11 tons) per year or less, the permitting 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 
following conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) The design emissions limit for each individual affected 
facility is less than or equal to the applicable PM emissions limit and 
the performance test for each individual affected facility is 90 
percent or less of the applicable PM standard;
    (2) The manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures are 
followed for each control device;
    (3) The monitoring requirements in paragraph (e) or (f) of this 
section are used for each affected facility; and
    (4) A performance test is conducted on each affected facility at 
least once every 5 calendar years.
    (e) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, an owner or operator of an 
affected facility for which the maximum 6-minute opacity reading from 
the most recent Method 9 of appendix A-4 of this part performance test 
is less than 3 percent may elect to comply with the requirements in 
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Monitor visible emissions from each affected facility according 
to the requirements in either paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Conduct daily observations each operating day for a period of 
at least 10 minutes (during normal operation) when the coal preparation 
and processing plant is in operation using EPA Method 22 of appendix A-
7 of this part and demonstrate that the sum of the occurrences of any 
visible emissions is not in excess of 5 percent of the observation 
period (i.e., 30 seconds per 10-minute period). If the sum of the 
occurrence of any visible emissions is greater than 30 seconds during 
the initial 10-minute observation, immediately conduct a 30-minute 
observation. If the sum of the occurrence of visible emissions is 
greater than 5 percent of the observation period (i.e., 90 seconds per 
30-minute period) the owner or operator shall either document and 
adjust the operation of the facility and demonstrate within 24 hours 
that the sum of the occurrence of visible emissions is equal to or less 
than 5 percent during a 30-minute observation (i.e., 90 seconds) or 
conduct a new Method 9 of appendix A-4 of this part performance test 
within 30 calendar days unless a waiver is granted by the permitting 
authority.
    (ii) If no visible emissions are observed for 7 consecutive 
operating days, observations can be reduced to once every 7 operating 
days. If any visible emissions are observed, daily observations shall 
be resumed.
    (2) Prepare a written site-specific monitoring plan for a digital 
opacity compliance system for approval by the Administrator. 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 shall be implemented by the owner or operator.
    (f) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, an owner or operator of an affected facility 
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 according 
to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(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 (f)(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.

[[Page 25325]]

    (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.


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 <plus-minus>1.7 [deg]C (<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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) and (2) 
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 the 
design controlled potential PM emissions rate 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) 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 <plus-minus>1 inch water gauge.
    (ii) 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 <plus-
minus>5 percent of design water supply pressure. The pressure sensor or 
tap must be located close to the water discharge point.
    (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 permitting 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 permitting 
authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system. This plan must be submitted to the permitting 
authority 90 days prior to the compliance date for 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 permitting 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.

[[Page 25326]]

    (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 
(4) 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.
    (2) To determine opacity for fugitive emissions sources, the 
additional requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) 
of this section 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 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) If during the initial 60 minutes of the observation of a Method 
9 of appendix A-4 of this part performance test all of the individual 
15-second observations are less than or equal to 20 percent and all of 
the resulting 6-minute averages are less than or equal to 3 percent or 
half the applicable limit, whichever is greater, then the observation 
period may be reduced from 3 hours to 60 minutes.
    (4) 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)(4)(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 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 EPA 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 SO<INF>2</INF> concentration. A minimum of three valid 
test runs are needed to comprise an SO<INF>2</INF> performance test.
    (7) Method 7 or 7E of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to 
determine the NO<INF>X</INF> concentration. A minimum of three valid 
test runs are needed to comprise an NO<INF>X</INF> 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 30- to 60-minute period) with 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 opacity observations noting those sources with emissions above 
the action

[[Page 25327]]

level (visible emissions in excess of 5 percent of the observation 
period) 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) A copy of any applicable fugitive dust emissions control plan 
and monthly certification that the plan was implemented as described. 
Any variance from plan, if any, shall be noted.
    (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 
both the scrubber pressure loss and water supply pressure.
    (b) For the purpose of reports required under Sec.  60.7(c), any 
owner/operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall report 
semiannually periods of excess emissions as follows:
    (1) The owner or operator of an affected facility with a wet 
scrubber shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator of 
occurrences when the measurements of the scrubber pressure loss and 
water supply pressure decrease by more than 10 percent from the average 
determined during the most recent performance test.
    (2) 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, consistent 
with the provisions of Sec.  60.8. The owner or operator who elects to 
comply with the reduced performance testing provisions of Sec. Sec.  
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, and the design emissions limit of each associated 
control device. The owner or operator electing to comply with Sec.  
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. E9-11912 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>