Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants, 22901-22913 [E8-9104]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 82 (Monday, April 28, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22901-22913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9104]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

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


Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     By Facsimile: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. EPA, Mail Code 6102T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 
total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments 
on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA 
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified 
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0260, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 
3334, Washington, DC, 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should 
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0260. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
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 https://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: Mr. Christian Fellner, Energy 
Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-4003, 
facsimile number (919) 541-5450, electronic mail (e-mail) address: 
fellner.christian@epa.gov.

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.

[[Page 22902]]

 
                                        213113  Support Activities for
                                                 Coal Mining.
                                        322121  Paper (except Newsprint)
                                                 Mills.
                                        324199  All other petroleum and
                                                 coal products
                                                 manufacturing.
                                        325110  Petrochemical
                                                 Manufacturing.
                                        327310  Cement Manufacturing.
                                        331111  Iron and Steel Mills.
Federal Government...............        22112  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                 electric utility steam
                                                 generating units owned
                                                 by the Federal
                                                 Government.
State/local/tribal government....        22112  Fossil fuel-fired
                                        921150   electric utility steam
                                                 generating units owned
                                                 by municipalities.
                                                 Fossil fuel-fired
                                                 electric steam
                                                 generating units in
                                                 Indian Country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the 
proposed rule. This table lists categories of entities that may have 
coal preparation plants regulated by this proposed rule. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by the proposed rule, you should 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  60.250 and the definitions 
in Sec.  60.251. If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of the proposed rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed 
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    WorldWide Web (WWW). Following the Administrator's signature, a 
copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the Technology 
Transfer Network's (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held 
at 10 a.m. at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina or at an alternate site nearby. Contact Mr. Christian Fellner 
at 919-541-4003 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public 
hearing, to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the 
hearing location.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    A. Applicability
    B. PM Emission Limit
    C. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements
    D. Additional Proposed Amendments
III. Rational for the Proposed Amendments
    A. Determination of Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT)
    B. Selection of Thermal Dryer PM Emission Limit
    C. Selection of Pneumatic Coal-Cleaning PM Emission Limit
    D. Selection of Coal Processing and Conveying Equipment, Coal 
Storage Systems, and Transfer and Loading System PM and Opacity 
Limits
    E. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions
V. Summary of Costs, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
VI. Request for Comment
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paper Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Background

    New source performance standards (NSPS) implement CAA section 
111(b) and are issued for categories of sources which have been 
identified as causing, or contributing significantly to, air pollution 
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 
welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS are to help States attain and 
maintain ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated 
emission control technologies are installed as the industrial 
infrastructure is modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful 
in achieving long-term emissions reductions at numerous industries by 
assuring cost-effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, 
and modified sources.
    CAA section 111 requires that NSPS reflect the degree of emission 
limitation achievable through application of the best system of 
emissions reductions which (taking into consideration the cost of 
achieving such emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated. This level of control is 
commonly referred to as best demonstrated technology (BDT). CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to periodically review and revise the 
standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect improvements in 
methods for reducing emissions.
    The current NSPS for coal preparation plants are contained in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Y, and were promulgated in the Federal Register on 
January 15, 1976 (41 FR 2232). Subpart Y is applicable to facilities 
which process more than 181 megagrams (Mg) (200 tons) of coal per day 
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after 
October 24, 1974. The first review of the Coal Preparation Plants NSPS 
was completed on April 14, 1981 (46 FR 21769). The second review of the 
Coal Preparation Plants NSPS was completed on April 03, 1989 (54 FR 
13384). EPA did not make changes to the NSPS as a result of these 
reviews.

II. Summary of Proposed Amendments

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

A. Applicability

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

[[Page 22903]]

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

B. PM Emission Limit

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

C. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

D. Additional Proposed Amendments

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

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. Determination of Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT)

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

B. Selection of Thermal Dryer PM Emission Limit

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

[[Page 22904]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 22905]]

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

[[Page 22906]]

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

E. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

IV. Modification and Reconstruction Provisions

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

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

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

[[Page 22907]]

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

VI. Request for Comment

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1062.10.
    These proposed amendments to the existing standards of performance 
for Coal Preparation Plants would add new monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements. The information would be used by EPA to 
ensure that any new affected facilities comply with the emission limits 
and other requirements. Records and reports would be necessary to 
enable EPA or States to identify new affected facilities that may not 
be in compliance with the requirements. Based on reported information, 
EPA would decide which units and what records or processes should be 
inspected.
    These proposed amendments would not require any notifications or 
reports

[[Page 22908]]

beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping 
requirements require only the specific information needed to determine 
compliance. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 
information submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentially is 
made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B, Confidentially of Business Information.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 
total 32,664 labor hours per year at an average annual cost of 
$2,957,707. This estimate includes performance testing, excess emission 
reports, notifications, and recordkeeping. There are no capital/start-
up costs or operational and maintenance costs associated with the 
monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR. Burden is 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current 
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations 
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0260. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of the notice for where to submit 
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after April 28, 2008, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by May 28, 2008. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed amendments on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

[[Page 22909]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, 
we have concluded that this proposed action is not likely to have any 
adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has 
decided to use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' 
for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide 
content of the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are 
acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available 
from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park 
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
    The EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1 through 
A-4), or 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7); and Performance 
Specification 11 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). While the Agency has 
identified 13 VCS as being potentially applicable to these methods 
cited in this rule, we have decided not to use these standards in this 
proposed rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been impractical 
because they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this 
rule. The search and review results are in the docket for this rule.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may 
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule 
and amendments. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why 
such standards should be used in this proposed action.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practical and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects 
on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of 
environmental protection for all affected populations without having 
any disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any populations, including any minority or low-income 
population. The proposed amendments would assure that all new coal 
preparation plants install appropriate controls to limit health impacts 
to nearby populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

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