Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants, 51950-51985 [E9-23783]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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



[[Page 51949]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 60



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

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

[[Page 51950]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

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


Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation and Processing 
Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

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

[[Page 51951]]

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

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

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

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

C. Judicial Review

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

II. Background Information on Subpart Y

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

[[Page 51952]]

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

A. Affected Facilities

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

B. Emission Limits

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

[[Page 51953]]

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

[[Page 51954]]

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

[[Page 51955]]

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

C. Emissions Testing and Monitoring Requirements

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

D. Opacity Testing and Monitoring Requirements

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

[[Page 51956]]

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

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

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

F. Electronic Reporting

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

G. Additional Amendments

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

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

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

A. Regulated Pollutants

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

[[Page 51957]]

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

[[Page 51958]]

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

B. Applicability and Definitions

    Comment: Many commenters stated that EPA proposed to add 
``processing'' to the title of subpart Y and, although EPA indicated in 
the preamble to the May 27, 2009, supplemental proposal, that it did 
not intend to change the applicability of subpart Y, the commenters are 
concerned that EPA has not adequately justified the need to make the 
change. Subpart Y already defines ``processing equipment'' as 
``machinery used to reduce the size of coal or to separate coal from 
refuse.'' Despite EPA's stated intentions, commenters believe that the 
risk exists that EPA, in future applicability interpretations, will 
determine that additional, non-preparation operations meet the meaning 
of processing, and will thereby bring them under subpart Y purview. To 
avoid confusion, the commenters stated that EPA should remove 
``processing'' from the title.
    Response: In the preamble to the supplemental proposal, EPA 
indicated that the proposed title change was for clarification purposes 
(i.e., to more accurately reflect the affected facilities subject to 
subpart Y). The affect