[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48338-48358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17787]



[[Page 48337]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 152 / Monday, August 9, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 48338]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0051; FRL-7797-8]
RIN 2060-AJ96


National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On October 27, 1993, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act, the EPA issued technology-based national emission standards to 
control hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by coke oven batteries. 
This proposal would amend the standards to include more stringent 
requirements for certain by-product coke oven batteries to address 
health risks remaining after implementation of the 1993 standards. We 
are also proposing amendments to the 1993 standards for emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants from non-recovery coke oven batteries.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 8, 
2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0051, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries 
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 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 St. NW., Washington DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20460. Such 
deliveries are only accepted 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. OAR-2003-0051. 
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, 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 EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov websites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, 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 EDOCKET or 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other information, 
such as copyrighted materials, is not placed on the Internet and will 
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy form at the National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries 
Docket, Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0051 or A-79-15, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 
B102, 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 Docket is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lula Melton, Emission Standards 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C439-02), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-2910, fax number (919) 541-3207, e-mail 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       NAIC
              Cateogry                 code      Examples of regulated
                                       \1\             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........................   331111  Existing by-product coke
                                      324199   oven batteries subject to
                                               emission limitations in
                                               40 CFR 63.302(a)(2) and
                                               non-recovery coke oven
                                               batteries subject to new
                                               source emission
                                               limitations in 40 CFR
                                               63.303(b). These are
                                               known as ``MACT track''
                                               batteries
Federal government.................  .......  Not affected
State/local/tribal government......  .......  Not affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.300 
of the national emission standards for coke oven batteries. If you have 
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through EDOCKET, 
regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as 
CBI

[[Page 48339]]

only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0051. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 
version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy 
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI 
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so 
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related 
Information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's proposed amendments is also available on the Worldwide Web 
(WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be 
placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN 
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

D. Will There Be a Public Hearing?

    If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
by August 30, 2004, a public hearing will be held on September 8, 2004. 
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.

E. How Is This Document Organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for development of the 
proposed amendments?
    B. What is our approach for developing these standards?
    C. What is unique about the regulatory regime for coke ovens?
    D. How does today's action comply with the requirements of 
section 112(d)(8) and (i)(8) that specifically apply to regulation 
of coke ovens?
    E. What is cokemaking?
    F. What HAP are emitted from cokemaking?
    G. What are the health effects associated with these HAP?
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
    A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
    B. What are the proposed requirements?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
    A. How did we estimate risks?
    B. What did we analyze in the risk assessment?
    C. How were cancer and noncancer risks estimated?
    D. How did we estimate the atmospheric dispersion of emitted 
pollutants?
    E. What factors are considered in the risk assessment?
    F. How did we calculate risks?
    G. How did we assess environmental impacts?
    H. What are the results of the risk assessment?
    I. What is our decision on acceptable risk and ample margin of 
safety?
    J. What determination is EPA proposing pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6)?
    K. Why are we amending the requirements in the 1993 national 
emission standard for door leaks on non-recovery batteries?
    L. What are the estimated cost impacts of the proposed 
amendments?
V. 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 that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

II. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for Development of the Proposed 
Amendments?

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage 
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, after EPA has 
identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed 
in the CAA, section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate national 
technology-based emission standards for sources within those categories 
that emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 
tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or 
more per year (known as ``major sources''), as well as for certain 
``area sources'' emitting less than those amounts. These technology-
based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable 
(after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and 
environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The EPA is then 
required to review these technology-based standards and to revise them 
``as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, 
processes and control technologies,'' no less frequently than every 8 
years.
    The second stage in standard-setting is described in section 112(f) 
of the CAA. This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report 
to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk 
posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the 
MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the 
means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons 
in proximity to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation 
regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted this 
report (``Residual Risk Report to Congress,'' EPA-453/R-99-001) in 
March 1999. The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in 
the report, triggering the second stage of the standard-setting 
process, the residual risk phase.
    Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each section 112(d) 
source category whether the MACT standards protect public health with 
an ample margin of safety. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified 
as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce 
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to 
emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than one 
in one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the 
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety. The EPA must also adopt more stringent standards to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined in section 112(a)(7) 
as ``any significant and widespread adverse effect * * * to wildlife, 
aquatic life, or natural resources * * *.''), but must consider cost, 
energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so.

B. What Is Our Approach for Developing These Standards?

    Following our initial determination that the individual most 
exposed for the emissions category considered exceeds a 1 in a million 
excess individual cancer risk, our approach to developing residual risk 
standards is based on a two-step determination of acceptable

[[Page 48340]]

risk and ample margin of safety. The first step, consideration of 
acceptable risk, is only a starting point for the analysis that 
determines the final standards. The second step determines an ample 
margin of safety which is the levels at which the standards are set.
    The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and 
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. 
However, section 112(f)(2)(B) retains EPA's interpretation of the terms 
``acceptable level'' and ``ample margin of safety'' provided in our 
1989 rulemaking (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), ``National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Benzene Emissions from 
Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage 
Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants,'' essentially directing EPA to use the interpretation set out 
in that notice \1\ or to utilize approaches affording at least the same 
level of protection.\2\ The EPA likewise notified Congress in its 
Residual Risk Report that EPA intended to use the Benzene NESHAP 
approach in making section 112(f) residual risk determinations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This reading is confirmed by the Legislative History to 
section 112(f); see, e.g., ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990,'' vol. 1, page 877 (Senate Debate on 
Conference Report).
    \2\ Legislative History, vol. 1 p. 877, stating that: ``* * * 
the managers intend that the Administrator shall interpret this 
requirement [to establish standards reflecting an ample margin of 
safety] in a manner no less protective of the most exposed 
individual than the policy set forth in the Administrator's benzene 
regulations * * *.''
    \3\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001, March 
1999, p. ES-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), we stated 
as an overall objective:

* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, we 
strive to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to 
health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest 
number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no 
higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; and (2) limiting to no 
higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in a million] 
the estimated risk that a person living near a facility would have 
if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations 
for 70 years.

    As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report, these goals 
are not ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but rather broad objectives 
to be weighed ``with a series of other health measures and factors.'' 
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Is Unique About the Regulatory Regime for Coke Ovens?

    The proposed amendments are case-specific for HAP *emissions from 
coke oven doors, lids, offtake systems, and charging. As explained 
below, Congress enacted a unique regulatory regime for control of coke 
oven HAP emissions. Thus, because these emissions are treated uniquely 
under the CAA, the methods and policies reflected in the proposed 
amendments should not necessarily be construed as setting a precedent 
for future rules under the residual risk program established by section 
112(f).
    As explained in more detail later in this preamble, emissions from 
charging, door leaks, and topside (lids and offtake systems) leaks are 
subject to specific statutory requirements and schedules. In 
particular, section 112(d)(8) established a deadline of December 31, 
1992 for the promulgation of MACT standards for designated emission 
points from these sources and established special requirements for the 
standards. In addition, section 112(i)(8) established the framework for 
an alternative regulatory approach that allowed these sources to defer 
residual risk standards until 2020 by electing to meet two tiers of 
more stringent standards reflecting the lowest achievable emission rate 
(LAER) (a technology-based standard more stringent than MACT). The 
regulations (58 FR 57911, October 27, 1993) included a second set of 
additional, more stringent standards for MACT track batteries that must 
be met on and after January 1, 2003, unless superseded by residual risk 
standards promulgated under section 112(f).

D. How Does Today's Action Comply With the Requirements of Section 
112(d)(8) and (i)(8) That Specifically Apply to Regulation of Coke 
Ovens?

    Section 112 includes several provisions that specifically govern 
our implementation of section 112(d) and (f) with respect to coke 
ovens. First, section 112(d)(8) sets specific minimum targets for 
technology-based standards promulgated for emissions from charging, 
door leaks, and topside leaks at coke ovens. Section 112(i)(8) 
establishes two ``tracks'' of technology-based standards and specifies 
different compliance timetables depending on the track chosen by the 
source. These tracks are generally referred to as the MACT track and 
the LAER track.
    The LAER track batteries are those sources that elected to meet 
more stringent technology-based standards beginning in 1993. The LAER 
standards become more stringent over time with the final LAER 
technology standards becoming effective in 2010. The LAER track 
batteries are exempt from any residual risk standards until 2020. 
Consequently, today's proposed amendments would not set residual risk 
standards for LAER track batteries.
    Today's proposed amendments would instead apply to those existing 
by-product coke oven batteries that chose the MACT track (five 
batteries at four plants). These existing by-product coke oven 
batteries were required, beginning in 1995, to comply with the 1993 
MACT standards promulgated for charging, door leaks, and topside leaks. 
Unlike the LAER track batteries, the MACT track batteries are not 
entitled to an extension of the residual risk compliance date. Thus, 
today's action determines, in accordance with section 112(f)(2), that 
residual risk standards are required for MACT track batteries and 
accordingly proposes residual risk standards for them.
    The specific provisions in section 112(d)(8) and (i)(8) only apply 
to charging, door leak, and topside leak emissions at coke oven 
batteries. Our initial list of source categories published on July 16, 
1992 (57 FR 31576) also contains a category entitled, ``Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks.'' We promulgated MACT standards 
for these emission points on April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18008). An 
assessment and decision on any potential residual risk standards for 
those emission points is required by 2011.
    Because the pushing, quenching, and battery stack emission points 
are an integral part of the same facilities covered by the MACT 
standards for charging, door leaks, and topside leaks (they not only 
are part of the same process but emit the same HAP), it is important to 
consider emissions from all of these points in assessing the risk 
associated with HAP emissions from coke ovens.\5\ As explained more 
fully below, we are proposing to make residual risk determinations on a 
facilitywide basis and we further propose that it is reasonable to 
defer a total facility risk determination until we make a residual risk 
determination for

[[Page 48341]]

the pushing, quenching, and battery stack emission points. Thus, our 
determination of the ample margin of safety level for the total coke 
oven facility (all emission points from coke oven batteries) will not 
be fully addressed until residual risk assessments for all coke plant 
source categories are completed. Nonetheless, we include estimates of 
total facility risks in today's proposal, and we believe that the 
standards we are proposing today for charging, doors, and topside leaks 
are sufficiently stringent so that when all residual risk standards 
have been set for coke plant source categories, the public will be 
protected with an ample margin of safety from the combined emissions 
from all emission points from coke oven batteries. We specifically 
request comment on our proposed use of the facilitywide approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Legislative History, vol. 1, p. 868, where Sen. 
Durenberger stated that ``EPA shall consider the combined risks of 
all sources that are colocated with such sources within the same 
major source.'' The Senator continued, however, that these standards 
need not be set at the same time, provided ``the standard for the 
categories in the first group must be sufficiently stringent so that 
when all residual risk standards have been set, the public will be 
protected with an ample margin of safety from the combined emissions 
of all sources within a major source.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What Is Cokemaking?

    In a coke oven battery, coal undergoes destructive distillation to 
produce coke. The coke industry consists of two sectors, integrated 
plants and merchant plants. Integrated plants are owned by or 
affiliated with iron- and steel-producing companies that produce 
furnace coke primarily for consumption in their own blast furnaces. 
There are nine integrated plants owned by six iron and steel companies. 
These plants account for 72 percent of United States (U.S.) coke 
production. Independent merchant plants produce furnace and foundry 
coke for sale on the open market. Foundry coke is used in foundry 
furnaces for melting scrap iron to produce iron castings. There are ten 
merchant plants. As of April 2003, there are 19 coke plants operating 
56 coke oven batteries; 46 are by-product batteries, and ten are non-
recovery batteries.
    A typical by-product battery consists of 40 to 60 adjacent ovens 
with common side walls made of high quality silica and other types of 
refractory brick. A weighed amount or specific volume of coal is 
discharged from the coal bunker into a larry car--a charging vehicle 
that moves along the top of the battery. The larry car is positioned 
over the empty, hot oven; the lids on the charging ports are removed; 
and the coal is discharged from the hoppers of the larry car into the 
oven. Typically, the individual slot ovens are 36 to 56 feet long, 1 to 
2 feet wide, and 8 to 20 feet high, and each oven holds between 15 and 
25 tons of coal.
    The coal is heated in the oven in the absence of air to 
temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg] F) which 
drives off most of the volatile organic constituents of the coal as 
gases and vapors, forming coke which consists almost entirely of 
carbon. The organic gases and vapors that evolve are removed through an 
offtake system and sent to a by-product plant for chemical recovery and 
coke oven gas cleaning.
    Coking temperatures generally range from 1,650 to 2,000[deg]F and 
are on the higher side of the range to produce blast furnace coke. 
Coking continues for 15 to 18 hours to produce blast furnace coke and 
25 to 30 hours to produce foundry coke.
    At the end of the coking cycle, doors at both ends of the oven are 
removed, and the incandescent coke is pushed out of the oven by a ram 
that is extended from the pusher machine. The coke is pushed through a 
coke guide into a special rail car, called a quench car, which 
transports the coke to a quench tower, typically located at the end of 
a row of batteries. Inside the quench tower, the hot coke is deluged 
with water so that it will not continue to burn after being exposed to 
air. The quenched coke is discharged onto an inclined ``coke wharf'' to 
allow excess water to drain and to cool the coke.
    There are two non-recovery plants (ten non-recovery batteries) 
operating in the U.S. As the name implies, this process does not 
recover the chemical by-products as does the by-product coking process. 
All of the coke oven gas is burned and instead of recovery of 
chemicals, this process allows for heat recovery and cogeneration of 
electricity. Non-recovery ovens operate under negative pressure and are 
of a horizontal design (as opposed to the vertical design used in the 
by-product process).

F. What HAP Are Emitted From Cokemaking?

    The primary HAP emitted from cokemaking are ``coke oven 
emissions,'' which includes many organic compounds. Constituents of 
primary interest because of adverse health effects include semi-
volatiles, such as polycyclic organic matter (POM) and polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The emissions also include volatile 
organic compounds (VOC), such as benzene, toluene, and xylene.
    Emissions occur at multiple stages of the coking process. Coke oven 
emissions can be released when the oven is charged with coal. During 
coking with the oven under positive pressure, emissions occur from 
leaking doors, lids, and offtakes. On rare occasions during an 
equipment failure or process upset, coke oven emissions may occur from 
bypass stacks. We promulgated emission standards for each of these 
emission points with limits for charging, doors, lids, and offtakes and 
a requirement to flare any bypassed coke oven gas (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart L) in 1993.
    Coke oven emissions are also released from pushing, quenching, and 
battery stacks. As noted earlier, we promulgated MACT standards that 
address these three emission points (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) in 
2003.
    Emissions of HAP also occur from the by-product plant that recovers 
various chemicals from the coke oven gas. The primary HAP in these 
emissions is benzene. We promulgated the NESHAP for benzene emissions 
from coke by-product recovery plants (40 CFR part 61, subpart L) in 
1989.

G. What Are the Health Effects Associated With These HAP?

    The toxic constituents of coke oven emissions, the listed HAP, 
include both gases (e.g., VOC such as benzene) and respirable 
particulate matter (PM) of varying chemical composition. In addition to 
the noncarcinogenic effects, there is concern over the potential 
carcinogenic and/or cocarcinogenic effects of POM, as well as various 
aromatic compounds (e.g., benzene) and trace metals (e.g., arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, and nickel).
    The HAP that would be controlled by the proposed amendments are 
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse 
health effects include chronic health disorders (e.g., cancers, blood 
disorders, central nervous system and respiratory effects) and acute 
health disorders (e.g., irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes 
and depression of the central nervous system).
    The degree of adverse health effects experienced by exposed 
individuals can vary widely. The extent and degree to which the health 
effects may be experienced depend on various factors, many of which 
have been considered in the risk assessment performed for the proposed 
amendments and discussed later in this preamble. Those factors include:
     Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
     Ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as 
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
     Frequency and duration of exposures; and
     Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, 
age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary 
significantly within the population.

[[Page 48342]]

    Studies of coke oven workers who were exposed to higher levels of 
coke oven emissions than the populations affected by these proposed 
amendments have reported an increase in cancer of the lung, trachea, 
bronchus, kidney, prostate, and other sites. Chronic (long-term) 
exposure of workers to coke oven emissions has also been associated 
with conjunctivitis, severe dermatitis, and lesions of the respiratory 
system and digestive system. We have classified coke oven emissions as 
a Group A, known human carcinogen.
    One of the more important constituents of coke oven emissions (from 
a health effects point of view) is the trace metal arsenic, a known 
human carcinogen. Studies of humans occupationally exposed to higher 
levels of arsenic than the populations affected by these proposed 
amendments have found increased incidence of lung cancers. Chronic 
(long-term) exposure to inorganic arsenic has also been associated with 
irritation of the skin and mucous membranes, and with neurological 
injury. Animal studies of inhalation exposure have indicated 
developmental effects.
    Another important constituent of coke oven emissions, benzene, is a 
known human carcinogen. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the 
tissues that form white blood cells) has been observed in humans 
occupationally exposed to benzene, and we have derived a range of 
inhalation cancer unit risk estimates for benzene. The value at the 
high end of the range was used in this assessment. Chronic (long-term) 
inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, 
including reduced numbers of red blood cells, in occupationally exposed 
humans. Reproductive effects have been reported in women exposed by 
inhalation to high levels of benzene, and adverse effects for high dose 
exposures on the developing fetus have been observed in animal tests.

III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

    The affected sources would be each coke oven battery subject to the 
emission limitations in 40 CFR 63.302 or 40 CFR 63.303 (i.e., the MACT 
track batteries). As noted above, the proposed amendments would cover 
emissions from doors, topside port lids, offtake systems, and charging 
on existing by-product coke oven batteries and emissions from doors and 
charging on new and existing non-recovery batteries.

B. What Are the Proposed Requirements?

    For existing by-product batteries, the proposed amendments would 
limit visible emissions from coke oven doors to 4 percent leaking doors 
for tall batteries and for batteries owned or operated by a foundry 
coke producer. Short batteries would be limited to 3.3 percent leaking 
doors. Visible emissions from other emission points would be limited to 
0.4 percent leaking topside port lids and 2.5 percent leaking offtake 
systems. No change would be made in the limit for charging--emissions 
must not exceed 12 seconds of visible emissions per charge. Each of 
these visible emission limits would be based on a 30-day rolling 
average. The proposed amendments would replace the less stringent 
limits that became effective on January 1, 2003, for MACT track 
batteries and are equivalent to the limits that will become effective 
on January 1, 2010, for LAER track batteries. We are not proposing to 
amend the standards for new by-product batteries.
    The monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements in the 
existing MACT standards would continue to apply to existing by-product 
coke oven batteries on the MACT track. These requirements include daily 
performance tests to determine compliance with the visible emission 
limits. Each performance test must be conducted by a visible emissions 
observer certified according to the test method requirements. A daily 
inspection of the collecting main for leaks is also required. Specific 
work practice standards must also be implemented if required by the 
provisions in 40 CFR 63.306(c). Under the existing standards, companies 
must make semiannual compliance certifications; report any uncontrolled 
venting episodes or startup, shutdown, or malfunction events; and keep 
records of information needed to demonstrate compliance.
    We are also proposing amendments for the improved control of 
charging emissions from a new non-recovery battery (i.e., constructed 
or reconstructed on or after August 9, 2004. Fugitive charging 
emissions would be subject to an opacity limit of 20 percent. A weekly 
performance test would be required to determine the average opacity of 
five consecutive charges for each charging emissions capture system. 
Emissions from a charging emissions control device would be limited to 
0.0081 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of dry coal charged. A performance 
test using EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) would be required 
to demonstrate initial compliance with subsequent performance tests at 
least once during each title V permit term. If any visible emissions 
are observed from a charging emissions control device, the owner or 
operator would be required to take corrective action and followup with 
a visible emissions observation by EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A) to ensure that the corrective action had been successful. 
Any Method 9 observation greater than 10 percent opacity would be 
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report. The 
proposed amendments would also require the owner or operator to 
implement a new work practice standard designed to ensure that the 
draft on the oven is maximized during charging.
    We are also proposing a work practice standard for the control of 
door leaks from all non-recovery coke oven batteries on the MACT track. 
The owner or operator would be required to observe each coke oven door 
after each charge and record the oven number of any door from which 
visible emissions occur. If a coke oven door leak is observed at any 
time during the coking cycle, the owner or operator would be required 
to take corrective action and stop the leak within 15 minutes from the 
time the leak is first observed. No additional leaks would be allowed 
from doors on that oven for the remainder of that oven's coking cycle. 
However, we are also proposing to allow up to 45 minutes instead of 15 
minutes to stop the leak for no more than two occurrences per battery 
during each semiannual reporting period. The limit of two occurrences 
per battery would not apply if a worker must enter a cokeside shed to 
take corrective action to stop a door leak. In this case, 45 minutes 
would be allowed to stop the leak, and the evacuation system and 
control device for the cokeside shed must be operated at all times that 
there is a leaking door under the cokeside shed. The owner or operator 
would also be required to identify malfunctions that might cause a door 
to leak, establish preventative measures, and specify types of 
corrective actions for such events in its startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements necessary to 
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance are also proposed.
    We are also proposing an amendment to clarify that the work 
practice standard for charging in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(2) that applies to 
existing non-recovery batteries also applies to new non-recovery 
batteries. These work

[[Page 48343]]

practices are described in 40 CFR 63.306(b)(6).
    As specified in the CAA section 112(f)(4)(A), the owner or operator 
of an existing by-product coke oven battery on the MACT track would 
have to comply with the proposed amendments within 90 days of the 
effective date of the final rule amendments. We are also proposing that 
non-recovery coke oven batteries on the MACT track comply within 90 
days (or upon startup for a new non-recovery battery which comes into 
existence after August 9, 2004).

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. How Did We Estimate Risks?

    Cancer and noncancer health impacts caused by environmental 
exposures generally cannot be isolated and measured directly. Even if 
it were possible to do so, we would not be able to use measurements to 
assess the impacts of future or alternative regulatory control 
strategies. As a result, modeling-based risk assessment is used as a 
tool to estimate health risks for many EPA programs. In risk 
assessments, there are many possible levels of analysis from the most 
basic screening approach to the more refined, detailed assessment.
    Our ``Residual Risk Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-99-011) 
provides the general framework for conducting risk assessments to 
support decisions made under the residual risk program. The 1999 Report 
to Congress acknowledged that each risk assessment design would have 
some common elements. In general, each assessment would contain a 
problem formulation phase where the content and scope of each 
assessment would be specified, an analysis phase where the exposure and 
effects relationship would be evaluated, and the risk characterization 
phase where the risks would be calculated and interpreted. While the 
final risk assessment used to support the decisions in these proposed 
amendments used advanced modeling of site-specific data for many 
modeling parameters and population characteristics derived from census 
data, we also used default assumptions for exposure parameters--some of 
which are assumed to be health protective (e.g., exposure frequency and 
exposure duration, 70-year constant emission rates).\6,\ \7\ However, 
in keeping with the tiered approach laid out in the Report to Congress, 
we decided that a quantitative description of uncertainty in the final 
risk characterization was not necessary for this assessment because it 
likely would not have altered the decision to propose further 
standards. The approach used to assess the risks associated with our 
coke oven standards is consistent with the technical approach and 
policies described in the Report to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additional details are provided in Table 2-10 of the risk 
assessment document in the rulemaking docket.
    \7\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, pp. B-18 and B-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Did We Analyze in the Risk Assessment?

    We performed a detailed risk assessment for the four by-product 
coke facilities (five MACT track batteries). Given the small number of 
facilities, we chose to analyze each of these facilities in a site-
specific manner. As described earlier, there are multiple source 
categories associated with coke ovens, each with its own standards. 
There are two MACT standards that affect this industry (i.e., the 1993 
national emission standards for charging, topside leaks, and door leaks 
and the 2003 NESHAP for pushing, quenching, and battery stacks), as 
well as the 1989 NESHAP for coke by-product recovery plants and the 
1990 NESHAP for benzene waste operations. Using an iterative assessment 
approach, we assessed emissions and estimated risks from all emission 
points at each coke facility. The initial screening-level analysis 
considered all emission points to determine if a more refined analysis 
was necessary and to determine the focus of such an analysis. A more 
refined analysis was then performed to determine the maximum individual 
risk and the risk distribution around the facilities. Results from the 
refined analysis are presented in this preamble.
    Emission points associated with the coking process include 
charging, door leaks, topside leaks, pushing, quenching, battery 
stacks, and the by-product recovery plant. To estimate baseline risks 
(both baseline facility-wide emissions and baseline of 1993 MACT 
emission points), we assumed that each battery was in compliance with 
its required performance level and that emission rates were equivalent 
to those allowed by the national emission standards. We modeled 
emissions at the rate allowed by the national emission standards 
because it represents the source's potential emissions and risks, and 
is, therefore, consistent with the language in section 112(f)(2), which 
states that ``if standards promulgated pursuant to subsection (d) * * * 
do not reduce lifetime risk * * * to less than one in a million, the 
Administrator shall promulgate standards under this subsection * * *'' 
We specifically request comments on this interpretation of section 
112(f)(2).
    Emission estimates for individual batteries were based on battery-
specific data such as coking time; the number of doors, lids, and 
offtakes on each battery; and the number of charges per year, as well 
as the performance standards for those emission points (5 percent 
leaking doors, 0.6 percent leaking lids, 3 percent leaking offtakes, 
and 12 seconds of visible emissions per charge). For the facility with 
two operating coke batteries, emission estimates for both batteries 
were combined to yield a risk estimate from the facility. The battery 
characteristics were obtained from a survey of the industry and from an 
EPA report that assessed control performance for these emission points 
at a coke facility that is similar to those included in this 
assessment. Information on the tons of coke produced and the tons of 
coal charged were also obtained from the industry survey. Emission 
estimates were based on emission factors for each emissions point and 
the applicable regulatory emissions limit. Our uncertainty analysis 
shows that the use of site-specific data and emission factors results 
in an uncertainty range for the emission estimates for leaks from 
doors, lids, and offtakes that may be a factor of 2 lower or a factor 
of 3 higher for these combined emission points. The uncertainty is 
dominated by the emissions from leaking doors, which comprise 
approximately 90 percent of the total emissions. We did not evaluate 
the uncertainty in estimates of charging emissions, which contribute 
less than 7 percent of the total emissions. Additional information on 
the uncertainty analysis is included in the risk assessment document.
    Emissions from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks were derived 
from two EPA tests, one at a battery producing foundry coke and one at 
a battery producing furnace coke. Pushing emission estimates included 
fugitive emissions and emissions from control devices. Because 
emissions vary depending on the type of push experienced (e.g., 
``green'' pushes result when coal is not fully coked), emission factors 
were used for the range of pushes experienced. Supporting data for 
estimating the number and frequency of green pushes were obtained from 
visible emission observations at several facilities. We then calculated 
an overall pushing emissions rate based on the frequency of green 
pushes and emission factors for each type of push. Emissions farom 
quenching and battery stacks were based on emissions tests.
    Emissions from the by-product recovery plant were estimated from

[[Page 48344]]

information on the type of processes at each facility, emission factors 
for each process, and the facility capacity. Emissions from equipment 
leaks were based on the number of equipment components at each 
facility, the composition of process liquids, and emission factors for 
each component. Emissions from benzene waste operations were estimated 
from site-specific data on the quantity of benzene in wastewater. In 
assessing risk from all of the emission points mentioned above, we used 
a combination of site-specific data and estimation techniques as inputs 
to the models used to evaluate risk and hazard.
    Our analysis of non-recovery batteries on the MACT track indicates 
that emissions from charging and door leaks are relatively low. There 
are no emissions from lids and offtakes because existing non-recovery 
batteries in the U.S. do not have these emission points. There are no 
emissions from door leaks during most normal operations because the 
ovens usually operate under negative pressure. Our modeling approach 
based on allowable emissions under MACT (zero percent leaking doors for 
non-recovery batteries) would estimate no door leak emissions at all. 
However, we recently obtained information that indicates certain 
equipment failures or operating problems can temporarily create a 
positive pressure in an oven and cause a door to leak. These events are 
considered to be short in duration and the problem can be quickly 
remedied (typically within 5 to 15 minutes). In order to ensure that 
door leak emissions are minimized, we have addressed these equipment 
failures and operating problems in our proposed amendments to the 1993 
national emission standards. The proposed revisions would require that 
corrective actions be implemented promptly if such events occur.
    With respect to emissions from charging, non-recovery ovens are 
operated under maximum draft during charging, and the organic compounds 
that may be generated during the process are mostly contained within 
the oven and combustion system. A small amount of charging emissions 
may escape from an oven through the opening used for charging. However, 
all non-recovery batteries have a capture hood and baghouse to control 
these emissions.
    Consequently, we would not anticipate any adverse public health or 
environmental impacts due to emissions from charging and coke oven 
doors at non-recovery batteries.

C. How Were Cancer and Noncancer Risks Estimated?

    The primary HAP emitted by this category are coke oven emissions 
which include POM, PAH, benzene, and other air toxics known or 
suspected to cause cancer and other health problems. For estimating 
cancer health risk due to inhalation exposure, emissions were based on 
the benzene soluble organics (BSO) fraction that was used as the 
surrogate for coke oven emissions in the epidemiology study which 
established coke oven emissions as a human carcinogen. In the 
assessment of noninhalation risk, coke oven emissions were 
characterized and speciated (i.e., individual constituents were 
identified). A set of 13 constituents \8\ was selected based on an 
analysis of their persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity (PBT). 
Emission estimates were determined for all constituents identified 
based on measurements of the chemical composition of the emissions from 
various emission sources. For this risk assessment, emission estimates 
for coke oven emissions (as BSO) were determined for charging, door 
leaks, topside leaks, fugitive pushing, and quenching emission points 
for by-product batteries. Emission rates for individual constituents 
were estimated for the pushing control device and battery stack 
emission points. Emission rates also were estimated for the HAP 
compounds known to be emitted from the by-product recovery plant 
(benzene, xylene, and toluene).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Constituents of coke oven emissions selected for this 
assessment include: acenaphthene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene, 
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, cadmium, 
chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, lead, and 
pyrene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the risk from exposure to these HAP, toxicity 
information was integrated with results from the exposure assessment. 
For this assessment, we modeled exposures to the total population 
living within 50 kilometers (km) of each of these facilities and 
estimated the exposure concentrations where people live and the cancer 
risks associated with lifetime exposures to coke oven emissions and to 
the individual constituents for which we have cancer unit risk factors. 
Where reference values for noncancer effects were available, we also 
evaluated the potential hazard associated with those effects. The 
selection and use of cancer unit risk factors and reference dose or 
concentration values for this assessment follows the approach outlined 
in the 1999 ``Residual Risk Report to Congress.'' The approach used to 
assess the risks associated with our coke oven standards is likewise 
consistent with the technical approach and policies described in the 
report. Our assessment has also been peer-reviewed to ensure that its 
methodology rests on sound scientific principles, and we have revised 
the assessment document to reflect comments made as part of the peer-
review process. The assessment document, comments made during the peer 
review, and a summary of our responses to those comments are included 
in the docket for the proposed amendments.

D. How Did We Estimate the Atmospheric Dispersion of Emitted 
Pollutants?

    As described in our Report to Congress, risk assessments may use a 
variety of models to describe the fate and transport of HAP released to 
the atmosphere. The models chosen must be appropriate for the intended 
application. In the fairly unique case of coke ovens, the collective 
heat rising from various emission points can significantly enhance the 
rise of the emissions plume, functioning like a ``representative'' 
stack. In order to include this aspect in the modeling, we used the 
Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) dispersion model. The BLP model, 
however, was not designed to consider the effects of the surrounding 
terrain on dispersion nor to model deposition of HAP as the plume 
disperses. To allow consideration of these parameters, we coupled the 
BLP model with the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) model. 
In this application, we used the BLP model to estimate the plume height 
and then used that value as an input to the ISCST3 model. The ISCST3 
model was used to simulate the subsequent dispersion and transport of 
the emissions. Site-specific inputs to the BLP model such as facility 
location, battery layout, dimensions, orientation, and operating 
temperatures were provided by the industry.
    Both the BLP and the ISCLT3 models have undergone standard 
scientific peer reviews prior to this assessment. The concept of 
coupling these two models together was peer-reviewed for the first time 
as part of this assessment. The reviewers agreed with the modeling 
concept and approach. Monitoring data may be useful for evaluating 
modeling approaches used to estimate ambient concentrations (see the 
risk assessment document for discussion of when this is appropriate). 
For the sites and pollutants included in this risk assessment, no 
ambient monitoring data were available. Therefore, it was not possible 
to evaluate the modeling

[[Page 48345]]

approach beyond what was done in the peer review. Moreover, even if 
comprehensive and high quality monitoring data were available, they 
would not be adequate by themselves for evaluating the impacts of 
alternative control strategies.

E. What Factors Are Considered in the Risk Assessment?

    The risk assessment was designed to generate a series of risk 
metrics that would provide information for a regulatory decision. The 
metrics consider both the maximum individual risk and the total 
population risk, the latter providing perspective on the potential 
public health impact by addressing each of the following questions:
     How many people living around the four by-product 
facilities have potential risk greater than 1 in a million?
     How many people are there at various risk levels?
     What are the impacts for different routes of exposure 
(e.g., inhalation and ingestion)?
    In addition, we are to determine if any adverse environmental 
effects exist.
    Consistent with standard atmospheric dispersion modeling practice, 
we assessed inhalation risks within 50 km (about 30 miles) of each of 
the four facilities. The annual average concentrations at the area-
weighted centers of census blocks or block groups were estimated using 
the ISCST3 model for each emission point. Based on the number of people 
residing in each block or block group along with the estimated 
concentrations in each block or block group, we generated an estimate 
of risk for all people living within 50 km (about 30 miles) of each 
coke facility, including an identification of which census block group 
had the estimated maximum air concentration. For this estimate, we 
assumed that the individual is exposed to the maximum level of coke 
oven emissions allowed by the 1993 national emission standards, and, as 
prescribed in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, that they are exposed to these 
emissions 24 hours a day for 70 years. Where risk estimates exceeded 1 
in a million, we identified the number of people at the various risk 
levels exceeding 1 in a million (i.e., the population risk 
distribution). For this estimate, we also assumed exposure occurred 24 
hours a day for 70 years because we wanted a conservative upper-bound 
estimate of the population at risk.
    Because of their chemical and physical properties, some HAP are 
known to present potential health risks as a result of deposition, 
persistence, and bioaccumulation in environmental media other than air. 
As a result, exposure to these HAP may occur by ingestion as well as by 
inhalation. Thirteen constituents of coke oven emissions were 
identified as PBT chemicals (i.e., they are environmentally persistent, 
they may bioaccumulate, and are toxic). Emissions of these pollutants 
are transported from the emission site by atmospheric processes and 
removed from the air by both wet and dry deposition. Upon deposition, 
they may cycle through various environmental compartments, such as 
soil, plants, animals, and surface water. The movement of these 
constituents through these compartments can be modeled using a fate and 
transport model in order to estimate human exposure through the 
ingestion pathway.
    We conducted multimedia, multipathway exposure modeling (using the 
EPA's Indirect Exposure Model) to determine if emissions from coke 
ovens present potential risks by routes of exposure other than 
inhalation. Site-specific modeling was performed for all four 
facilities using information collected on land use, population, soil 
types, farming activity, and watershed/waterbody locations and areas. 
The assessment was based on a subsistence farmer scenario located where 
land-use data identified actual farming activity around each of the 
four facilities (agricultural lands were identified at distances 
ranging from 1.7 to 11 km from the four coke facilities). This scenario 
reflects an adult living on a farm and consuming meat, dairy products, 
and vegetables that the farm produces. The animals raised on the farm 
subsist primarily on forage that is grown on the farm. We also assumed 
that the farm family fishes in nearby waters at a recreational level, 
and that they eat the fish they catch. These results allow for 
comparison of risks by ingestion with those presented by inhalation.

F. How Did We Calculate Risks?

    Cancer risks were characterized for the inhalation exposure pathway 
using lifetime excess cancer risk estimates which are calculated as the 
product of the unit risk estimate (URE) (the unit risk estimate is an 
upper-bound estimate of the probability of developing cancer over a 
lifetime) and the exposure concentration estimated for each HAP. The 
cancer risk estimates for each HAP are summed across all carcinogenic 
HAP. These estimates represent the probability of developing cancer 
over a lifetime as a result of exposure to emissions from these coke 
ovens.
    Noncancer risks were characterized through the use of hazard 
quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI). An HQ is calculated as the ratio 
of the exposure concentration of a pollutant to its benchmark 
concentration. An HI is the sum of HQ for HAP that target the same 
organ or system.
    The maximum individual risk was estimated deterministically. More 
probabilistic presentations and analyses (ranging from simple risk 
distributions to more quantitative Monte Carlo simulations) \9\ may be 
done to better understand the assessment uncertainty and variability. 
As our Residual Risk Report to Congress suggested, we would consider 
doing a probabilistic analysis after considering the needs and scope of 
the assessment. This is consistent with the policy of EPA as stated in 
the 1997 ``Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk 
Assessment,'' which states ``* * * it is not the intent of this policy 
to recommend that probabilistic analysis be conducted for all risk 
assessments supporting risk management decisions.'' \10\ The policy 
also states ``* * * probabilistic methods should be used wherever the 
circumstances justify these approaches.'' As discussed earlier in this 
preamble, we determined that this level of refinement was not necessary 
for this risk assessment because the results of a probabilistic 
analysis are unlikely to affect the proposed risk management decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Residual Risk Report to Congress, pp. 94-128.
    \10\ Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk 
Assessment, EPA Science Policy Council. May 15, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. How Did We Assess Environmental Impacts?

    In order to assess whether the continuing emissions from these four 
coke oven facilities could contribute to adverse environmental effects, 
we performed a screening-level ecological risk assessment. We 
intentionally designed this assessment to be protective of the health 
of ecological receptors. It was not intended to be used in predicting 
specific types of effects to individuals, species, populations, or 
communities or to the structure and function of the ecosystem. We used 
the assessment to identify HAP or sources which may pose potential risk 
or hazard to ecological receptors and, if so, would need to be 
evaluated in a more refined level of risk assessment.
    The screening endpoints were the structure and function of generic 
aquatic and terrestrial populations and communities, including 
threatened and endangered species, that might be

[[Page 48346]]

exposed to HAP emissions from these four facilities. The assessment 
endpoints were relatively generic with respect to descriptions of the 
environmental values that are to be protected and the characteristics 
of the ecological entities and their attributes. We assumed in the 
assessment that these ecological receptors were representative of 
sensitive individuals, populations, and communities that may be present 
near these facilities.
    The HAP included in the ecological assessment were the metals 
cadmium and lead and 11 PAH: Acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, 
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, 
benzo(k)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, fluorene, pyrene, and indeno-
123(cd)pyrene. We derived estimated media concentrations for each of 
these HAP from the media concentrations estimated in the multipathway 
exposures assessment. We chose exposure pathways to reflect the 
potential routes of exposure through sediment, soil, water, and air. We 
selected these environments because they are considered representative 
of locations of generic populations and communities most likely to be 
exposed to the HAP. Within these environments the receptors evaluated 
consisted of two distinct groups: Terrestrial and aquatic (i.e., 
including aquatic, benthic, and soil organisms; terrestrial plants and 
wildlife; and herbivorous, piscivorus, and carnivorous wildlife).
    The chronic ecological toxicity screening values used in the 
assessment were estimates of the maximum concentrations that should not 
affect survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive species after 
long-term (more than 30 days) exposure to HAP. We screened HAP, 
pathways, and receptors using the ecological HQ method, which simply 
calculates the ratio of the estimated environmental concentrations to 
the selected ecological screening values.

H. What Are the Results of the Risk Assessment?

    Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the estimated maximum 
individual risk using the modeled ambient air concentrations from the 
refined air modeling assessment and risk distribution for the four 
facilities at the baseline emissions level (i.e., risks based on MACT 
allowable emission levels allowed by the three regulations for all 
emission points assessed across the four coke facilities). Table 1 of 
this preamble also shows the estimated risks attributable to emissions 
from only charging, door, and topside leaks under the 1993 national 
emission standards. These latter emissions contribute about 38 percent 
of total facility HAP emissions.

 Table 1.--Baseline Risk Estimates Due to HAP Exposure Based on 70-Year
                          Exposure Duration \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1993 national
            Parameter                  Facility       emission standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual risk from      500 in a million..  200 in a million.
 facility with highest risk.
Annual cancer incidence summed    0.1...............  0.04
 for all four facilities (cases/
 year).
Population at risk across all
 four facilities (modeled to 50
 km):
    > 1 in a million............  900,000...........  300,000
    > 10 in a million...........  50,000............  8,000
    > 100 in a million..........  300...............  8
        Total modeled...........  4,000,000.........  4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All risk, cancer incidence, and population estimates are rounded to
  one significant figure.

    The maximum individual facility-level risk (i.e., modeled risk 
based on emission levels allowed by the three regulations for all 
emission points assessed) is 500 in a million compared to 200 in a 
million for emissions only from those processes associated with the 
1993 national emission standards. This level of risk was seen at only 
one of the four facilities assessed. The maximum individual facility-
level risk values for the other three facilities were 50, 100, and 100 
in a million compared with risks of 20, 50, and 70 in a million, 
respectively, for emissions associated with only the 1993 national 
emission standards.
    The annual cancer incidence (the number of cancer cases estimated 
to occur) for all facilities combined is 0.1 and 0.04 cases per year 
based on the facility level versus the emissions level from sources 
subject to the 1993 national emission standards, respectively. Across 
all four facilities, and assuming the entire population is exposed for 
70 years, approximately 900,000 persons (approximately 20 percent of 
total population) are estimated to be exposed to risks greater than 1 
in a million for the total facility emissions compared to 300,000 
persons (approximately 7 percent) for the emission points subject to 
the 1993 national emission standards.
    We also evaluated potential risks for adverse health effects other 
than cancer. The estimated maximum inhalation HI for any noncancer 
effect from an entire facility is 0.4 for hematologic (blood) effects 
due to benzene. In addition, results from a multipathway risk 
assessment presented in the risk assessment document shows that cancer 
risks from inhalation exposures exceed cancer risks due to ingestion, 
generally, by an order of magnitude. In this same assessment, the 
noncancer ingestion HI was estimated to be 0.001. This level was seen 
at two facilities assessed with high-end exposure factors.
    The results of a screening-level ecological assessment show that 
each of the coke plants had ecological HQ values less than 1 for all 
pollutants assessed. Therefore, it is not likely that the HAP emitted 
would pose an ecological risk to ecosystems near any of these 
facilities. It is also not likely that any threatened and endangered 
species, if they exist around these facilities, would be adversely 
affected by these HAP emissions because they are not likely to be any 
more sensitive to the effects of these HAP than the species evaluated.
    The risk analysis assumed that all emission points from the 
batteries are leaking or emitting at the maximum rate allowable under 
the 1993 national emission standards for charging, doors, and topside 
leaks, since it is theoretically possible that these amounts of 
emissions could occur. However, this assumption (although theoretically 
possible) overstates actual emission levels. We analyzed 1,000 to 2,600 
daily compliance determinations for each battery to compare the actual 
average emissions to the maximum rate allowed under the 1993 national 
emission standards as modeled.\11\ The

[[Page 48347]]

results of this analysis indicate that average performance is better 
than the current MACT limits and is closer to the more stringent 2010 
LAER limits. The five MACT track batteries average 44 percent of the 
MACT limit for doors leaks, 16 percent of the limit for lid leaks, 21 
percent of the limit for offtake leaks, and 27 percent of the limit for 
charging. An average performance that is better than the limit is to be 
expected because if batteries were to operate on average at the level 
of the 1993 national emission standards, they would likely exceed the 
standards a high percent of the time. Consequently, facility owners and 
operators consistently operate below the standards to avoid violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We updated the database to include inspections in 2003. 
There was only a small change from the previous database used in the 
risk analysis for actual emissions, and the update did not have a 
significant impact on the estimate of emissions and risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this preamble repeats (from Table 1) the estimated risks 
attributable to charging, doors, lids, and offtakes at the baseline 
level (i.e., the level of risk assuming emissions from the batteries 
are at the maximum allowed by the 1993 national emission standards). 
Table 2 of this preamble further projects risks at the 2010 LAER level.

 Table 2.--Risk Estimates Due to HAP Exposure Based on 70-Year Exposure
                                Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1993 national
            Parameter             emission standards       2010 LAER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual risk at        200 in a million..  180 in a
 facility with highest risk.                           million.\1\
Annual cancer incidence summed    0.04..............  0.03
 for all four facilities (cases/
 year).
Population at risk across all
 four facilities (modeled to 50
 km):
    > 1 in a million............  300,000...........  200,000
    > 10 in a million...........  8,000.............  7,000
    > 100 in a million..........  8.................  6
        Total modeled...........  4,000,000.........  4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maximum individual risk estimate of 180 in a million is
  presented with two significant figures in order to show the risk
  reduction expected by the 10 percent decrease in emissions we
  anticipate seeing between the 1993 and 2010 emission levels.

    The maximum individual risk is 200 in a million for the baseline 
and 180 in a million for the 2010 LAER limits. For the baseline, 93 
percent of the total modeled population is exposed to risk levels less 
than 1 in a million compared to 95 percent for the 2010 LAER limits 
(based on 70-year exposure duration). However, because these facilities 
are in fact performing better than the limits in the 1993 national 
emission standards (i.e., they could already meet the 2010 LAER 
limits), the difference in risk between the two scenarios may be 
smaller than the table indicates (and could be as small as zero).
    We acknowledge that there are uncertainties in various aspects of 
risk assessment due to the use of some modeling and exposure 
assumptions. In this risk assessment, the use of these assumptions is 
likely to result in our overestimating the maximum individual risk and 
the magnitude of risk experienced by individual members of the 
population. For example, Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble present 
estimates of the number of people whose individual risk exceeds various 
levels (e.g., 1 in a million, 10 in a million, 100 in a million) under 
different scenarios (e.g., 1993 national emission standards, 2010 
LAER). We based these estimates on an assumption that everyone in the 
modeled population (4 million people) is exposed to the maximum level 
of coke oven emissions allowed by the MACT standard rather than the 
actual emissions known to occur now, and that they were exposed to 
these emissions in one place of residence for 70 years. Such a scenario 
is very unlikely because individuals typically do not occupy the same 
residence for such a long period of time (e.g., the median residential 
occupancy period is approximately 9 years, and less than 0.1 percent of 
the population is estimated to occupy the same residence for greater 
than 70 years). Because EPA typically assumes that an individual's 
excess lifetime risk of cancer is directly proportional to their 
duration of exposure to the carcinogen(s) in question, reducing the 
duration of exposure for individuals in the modeled population would 
reduce the estimates of their risk. To illustrate this, we performed an 
additional analysis that showed that the average excess lifetime cancer 
risks for individuals in the modeled population are likely to be about 
six times less than we predicted. These results are based on using the 
national average residency time of 12 years as the exposure duration 
rather than 70 years. We then used these results to develop a rough 
lower-bound estimate of the distribution of population risks, which 
suggests that the numbers of people exposed to risk levels greater than 
100, 10, and 1 in a million could be as low as 0, 200, and 70,000, 
respectively. These are likely to be under-estimates because we assumed 
people would move entirely out of the area after their current stay. We 
are working on a better way to more accurately estimate population 
risks for future residual risk assessments.
    We must temper these data with the understanding that when 
individuals move to another location, they are replaced by new 
residents which would increase the total number of people exposed 
beyond the 4 million assumed in this assessment. Also, because of the 
assumed proportionality described above, if a more detailed exposure 
duration treatment were used, the predicted cancer incidence in the 
total modeled population would not change, but the expected 
distribution of risk in that population would have fewer individuals in 
the upper risk ranges. In addition, the risks may not change 
appreciably for individuals moving elsewhere in the same community. As 
a result, the total number of exposed individuals likely would be 
greater than we predicted in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble (the 
number of exposed individuals is a function of the length of time that 
the emissions, as modeled, continue).

I. What Is Our Decision on Acceptable Risk and Ample Margin of Safety?

    Section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA states that if the MACT standards 
for a source emitting a:

    * * * known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not 
reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed 
to emissions from a source in the category * * * to less than one in 
one million, the Administrator shall promulgate [residual risk] 
standards * * * for such source category.

    The risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from coke 
ovens is 1 in a million or greater. Coke oven batteries subject to the 
proposed amendments emit known, probable, and possible human 
carcinogens, and, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble, we 
estimate that the

[[Page 48348]]

maximum individual risk (discussed below) associated with the limits in 
the 1993 national emission standards is 200 in a million. Even if we 
were to consider the uncertainty and variability in the exposure and 
modeling assumptions used to derive our estimate of maximum individual 
risk, such an analysis is unlikely to change any decisions that would 
be made based on that level of risk.
    In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, the first step of the ample margin of 
safety framework is the determination of acceptability (i.e., are the 
estimated risks due to emissions from these facilities ``acceptable''). 
This determination is based on health considerations only. The 
determination of what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a 
judgment of ``what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' 
(54 FR 38045, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) 
recognizing that our world is not risk-free.
    In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, we determined that a maximum individual 
risk of approximately 100 in a million should ordinarily be the upper 
end of the range of acceptable risks associated with an individual 
source of pollution. We defined the maximum individual risk as ``the 
estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or 
she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 
years.'' We explained that this measure of risk ``is an estimate of the 
upperbound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as 
continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.'' We acknowledge 
that maximum individual risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true 
risk, but displays a conservative risk level which is an upper bound 
that is unlikely to be exceeded.''
    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
maximum individual risk as a metric for determining acceptability, the 
Agency acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that ``consideration of 
maximum individual risk * * * must take into account the strengths and 
weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Consequently, the presumptive 
risk level of 100 in a million provides a benchmark for judging the 
acceptability of maximum individual risk, but does not constitute a 
rigid line for making that determination. In establishing a presumption 
for the acceptability of maximum individual risk, rather than a rigid 
line for acceptability, we explained in the Benzene NESHAP that risk 
levels should also be weighed with a series of other health measures 
and factors, including:
     The numbers of persons exposed within each individual 
lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km 
(about 30 miles) exposure radius around facilities;
     The science policy assumptions and estimation 
uncertainties associated with the risk measures;
     Weight of the scientific evidence for human health 
effects;
     Other quantified or unquantified health effects;
     Effects due to co-location of facilities and co-emission 
of pollutants; and
     The overall incidence of cancer or other serious health 
effects within the exposed population.
    In some cases, these health measures and factors may provide a more 
realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the exposed 
population than that provided by ``maximum individual risk.''
    We consider the level of risk resulting from the limits in the 1993 
national emission standards to be acceptable for this source category. 
Although the calculated level of maximum individual risk (200 in a 
million) is greater than the presumptively acceptable level of maximum 
individual risk under the Benzene NESHAP formulation (100 in a 
million), we also considered other factors in making our determination 
of acceptability, as directed by the Benzene NESHAP. The principal 
factors that influenced our decision are the following: more than 93 
percent of the exposed population has risks less than 1 in a million; 
fewer than 8 people in the exposed population have risks exceeding 100 
in a million; the annual incidence of cancer resulting from the limits 
in the 1993 national emission standards is estimated as 0.04 cases, or 
1 case per 25 years; and, in practice facilities are achieving 
emissions levels less than the limits in the 1993 national emission 
standards, such that the actual risks from those sources are less than 
those presented for the modeled population in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
preamble. The levels of these measures of risk, when considered in 
combination, are acceptable. In addition, no significant noncancer 
health effects or adverse ecological impacts would be anticipated at 
this level of emissions. Therefore, the risks associated with the 
limits in the 1993 national emission standards are acceptable after 
considering maximum individual risk, the population exposed at 
different risk levels, the projected absence of noncancer effects and 
adverse ecological effects, estimation uncertainty, and the other 
factors described earlier.
    In the second step of the ample margin of safety framework, we 
considered setting standards at a level which may be equal to or lower 
than the acceptable risk level and which protect public health with an 
ample margin of safety. In making this determination, we considered the 
estimate of health risk and other health information along with 
additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control, 
including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological 
feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant factors.
    We considered options that might provide a level of control more 
stringent than the acceptable risk level for this source category (1993 
national emission standards). One obvious option is to evaluate the 
2010 LAER limits, since these limits are already specified in the 
statute as benchmarks. Our review of the data shows that these limits 
can be achieved by the MACT track batteries and will result in improved 
emission control. Three of the batteries have never exceeded the 2010 
LAER limits for all four emission points. The historical data show that 
the remaining two batteries have exceeded the limit for doors in a few 
instances. These same two batteries have never exceeded the 2010 LAER 
limits for charging and offtakes. One of these two batteries has 
occasionally exceeded the limit for lids. The control technology for 
these emission points is a work practice program that includes 
procedures to identify leaks and to seal them when they occur. 
Increased diligence in controlling door and lid leaks would allow these 
batteries to achieve compliance with the 2010 LAER limits. The 
additional effort to control door and lid leaks would not require 
additional personnel. The available information indicates that an 
increase in maintenance labor and sealing materials would be the 
primary components of any small increase in costs. The cost is 
estimated at $4,500/yr based on the projected number of additional 
leaks to be sealed and a conservative estimate of 30 minutes of labor 
per leak.
    We also considered the feasibility of emission limits more 
stringent than the 2010 LAER limits. We analyzed emissions data from 
the four by-product coke plants consisting of 3 to 7 years of daily 
compliance demonstrations for each battery. The inspection data show 
that the batteries have achieved the 2010 LAER limits a high percentage 
of the time. However, the data also show that there is variability in 
the level of control that is achieved over time, and emission limits 
that are not-to-be exceeded must account for this variability. 
Variability can be

[[Page 48349]]

introduced by a number of factors, such as the type of seals (metal, 
luted, or water seals); coking conditions (cycle time, temperature, 
coal mix, oven pressure, whether furnace or foundry coke is produced); 
battery features (design, age, condition of brickwork and structural 
steel); weather conditions; and different work crews, as well as the 
variability inherent in Method 303 inspections.
    For door leaks, recent Method 303 inspection data show that three 
batteries have consistently achieved the 2010 LAER limits, but these 
batteries have had compliance determinations that approached those 
limits (e.g., 3.5 percent leaking doors compared to a limit of 4 
percent). The other two batteries sometimes were higher than the 
proposed limit of 4 percent leaking doors and reported maximum values 
of 4.7 and 4.4 percent leaking. These two batteries averaged only one 
door leak during inspections. Considering that leaks cannot be entirely 
eliminated at all times, we are not certain that more stringent limits 
that approach zero door leaks can be achieved consistently. The data 
show that the 2010 LAER limits have been achieved a high percent of the 
time; however, the data do not show that these batteries have achieved 
more stringent levels on a not-to-be-exceeded basis.
    The data show a similar situation for lid leaks and the proposed 
limit of 0.4 percent leaking lids. All five batteries on average 
perform below the limit. However, the batteries approach or exceed the 
2010 limit on occasion due to inherent variability. One battery had 
maximum values that exceeded the limit (up to 0.5 percent leaking 
lids), one battery had maximum values equal to the limit (0.4 percent 
leaking lids), and three batteries approached the limit at 0.3 percent 
leaking lids. All of the batteries averaged less than one lid leak 
during the inspections with averages of 0.1 to 0.3 lid leaks per 
inspection.
    For offtake leaks, two batteries approached the limit of 2.5 
percent leaking with inspection results of 2.4 percent leaking. The 
other three batteries had maximum values of 1.3 to 1.9 percent leaking. 
The average number of leaking offtakes during the inspections ranged 
from 0.1 to 0.9 leaks. Considering that these batteries approach or 
exceed the 2010 limits for lids and offtakes on occasion while 
averaging less than one leak per inspection, we cannot conclude that 
limits more stringent than those proposed have been demonstrated as 
achievable on a consistent basis.
    For charging, all five batteries consistently met the proposed 
limit of 12 seconds per charge with maximum values of 4 to 9 seconds 
per charge. We evaluated the feasibility of a more stringent emission 
limit for charging. The data indicate that a limit of 9 seconds per 
charge has been achieved by the five batteries on a consistent basis. 
However, charging emissions contribute only 8 percent of the total 
emissions from the four emission points, and a 25 percent reduction in 
the charging emission limit would result in only a 2 percent reduction 
in overall emissions. A more stringent charging emission limit would 
achieve only a negligible reduction in emissions and risk while 
increasing the potential for non-compliance. Consequently, we 
determined that a more stringent charging emission limit is not 
warranted.
    We considered one other option that would reduce risk beyond the 
2010 LAER levels--requiring facilities to convert to the non-recovery 
cokemaking technology. We considered this technology because of its 
potential environmental benefits and because Congress required that we 
evaluate this technology as a basis for emission standards for new coke 
oven batteries.
    Replacing existing batteries with non-recovery batteries would be 
financially crippling to the industry. The construction of a non-
recovery battery requires a capital investment on the order of hundreds 
of millions of dollars (about $300 per ton of coke capacity). For 
example, the estimated capital cost to replace batteries on the MACT 
track ranges from $50 to $290 million per plant based on the existing 
coke capacity at these plants. The domestic coke industry is currently 
economically depressed, and the lower cost of imported coke has 
adversely affected domestic production. Based on recent trends that 
show a continuing decline in domestic coke capacity due to shutdowns, 
these coke facilities would be more likely to permanently close rather 
than construct new non-recovery batteries. For example, 12 of the 30 
coke plants operating in 1993 have permanently shut down, and five of 
these plants were on the MACT track. Consequently, we determined that 
requiring the replacement of existing batteries with non-recovery 
batteries was not a reasonable or economically feasible option.
    We examined more closely the current performance of the MACT track 
batteries, emissions and risks based on current performance, and the 
potential cost impacts of the 2010 LAER limits. As with many industrial 
processes, performance of coke oven batteries is variable from day to 
day. Recognizing this, the MACT and LAER standards are 30-day averages 
of seconds of charging and percent of leaking doors, lids and offtakes. 
A consequence of this is that longer-term averages (a year or longer) 
necessarily will be lower than the highest 30-day average during the 
same time period--40 to 73 percent lower for leaking doors, and lower 
for the other parameters, based on the level of emissions control 
achieved during recent visible emission inspections. This results in 
actual emissions lower than would occur if all facilities emitted 
consistently at the allowable 30-day average limits: 7.3 tons/yr of BSO 
based on actual visible emission observations vs. 11.2 tons/yr based on 
allowable visible emissions.
    In Table 3 of this preamble, we provide risk estimates for these 
current ``actual emissions''.

       Table 3.--Risk Estimates Based on 70-Year Exposure Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1993 national       1993 national
                                  emission standards  emission standards
            Parameter              sources based on    sources based on
                                     the allowable      current actual
                                    emission limits      emissions \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual risk at        200 in a million..  140 in a million.
 facility with highest risk.
Annual cancer incidence summed    0.04..............  0.02
 for all four facilities (cases/
 year).
Population at risk across all
 four facilities (modeled to 50
 km):
    > 1 in a million............  300,000...........  200,000
    > 10 in a million...........  8,000.............  6,000
    > 100 in a million..........  8.................  6
        Total modeled...........  4,000,000.........  4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on the level of emission control achieved during visible
  emissions inspections conducted from 1995 through 2003 (nationwide
  emissions estimated as 7.3 tons/yr).


[[Page 48350]]

    When we examined compliance records for the four facilities, we 
found that they all met all the 2003 MACT levels for charging and for 
percent of leaking doors, lids and offtakes, except for one battery at 
one facility for percent leaking doors, in the first years after the 
MACT rule was published (but before the 2003 level took effect). After 
that time, that facility stayed below the 2003 MACT level. That 
facility's 30-day levels of percent leaking doors were above the 2010 
LAER level several times into 1998, but then stayed below that level 
since that time.
    Two batteries at a second facility stayed consistently below the 
2003 MACT level for percent leaking doors, but had a number of events 
where the 30-day average exceeded the 2010 LAER level, as recently as 
2001 and 2002. Similarly, one battery at that facility, while staying 
below the 2003 MACT level for percent leaking lids, had a few episodes 
when it exceeded the 2010 LAER level.
    For the other facilities and for the other parameters, the 
batteries showed consistent compliance not only with the 2003 MACT 
levels, but with the 2010 LAER levels. In some cases, the maximum 30-
day averages in the compliance history would have been relatively close 
to the 2010 LAER levels (3.0 percent maximum vs. 3.3 percent 2010 LAER 
percent leaking doors level for one facility, for example) but most 
would be less close.
    Given this compliance history, only one facility would need to 
alter its practices in any way to consistently meet the levels being 
proposed today, equivalent to the 2010 LAER. The available information 
indicates that an increase in maintenance labor and sealing materials 
would be the primary components of any small increase in costs. The 
cost is estimated at $4,500/yr based on the projected number of 
additional leaks to be sealed and a conservative estimate of 30 minutes 
of labor per leak. We estimate that this facility's annual emissions 
would decrease by about 0.1 tons/yr. We anticipate no additional 
actions or costs at the other three facilities, and consequently no 
change in their emissions.
    We estimate that there would be very small changes in the resulting 
risks because the one facility that we expect to take action as a 
result of the levels being proposed has only 8 percent of the total 
modeled population, its estimated maximum risk level is 70 in a 
million, and the total reduction in emissions is likely to be 
relatively small (from 7.3 tons/yr to 7.2 tons/yr). The maximum 
individual risk at the facility with the highest risk would not change, 
nor would the number of people at a risk above 100 in a million for all 
facilities (because we know from the data that all six of the 
individuals estimated to be at this level of risk reside around one of 
the three facilities currently meeting the 2010 LAER limits). We 
anticipate very small decreases in the total annual cancer incidence 
summed across all four facilities and in the estimated number of people 
at a risk above 10 in a million and 1 in a million. These decreases are 
well within the noise level of our ability to estimate such changes.
    We determined that the 2010 LAER limits provide an opportunity for 
additional control and are achievable and reasonable. We believe that 
these coke oven batteries can achieve the 2010 LAER limits at a 
reasonable cost. Establishing more stringent limits or requiring the 
non-recovery technology is not technologically or economically 
feasible. Therefore, our proposed determination is that control to the 
2010 LAER levels would provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health and the environment.
    We expect that implementation of the proposed limits would reduce 
the estimated risk that a person living near a facility would have if 
he or she were exposed to that level for 70 years. Implementation of 
the proposed limits would ensure that we provide the maximum feasible 
protection against the estimated health risks by protecting the 
greatest number of persons to an individual lifetime risk level of no 
higher than 1 in a million. Specifically, under the proposed standard, 
more than 95 percent of the persons living within 50 km of the coke 
plants would be exposed at risk levels less than 1 in a million, as 
compared with more than 93 percent under the current standard. 
Additionally, the maximum estimated target organ specific HI for the 
emissions of HAP that may cause effects other than cancer from all 
emission points at the facility is 0.4. These emissions do not ``exceed 
a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin 
of safety.''\12\ Actual emissions would be reduced from 7.3 tons/yr to 
7.2 tons/yr at a cost of $4,500/yr. No coke oven batteries are 
projected to close because of the proposed amendments. We specifically 
request comments on how measured data and modeled data are used to 
support the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, this analysis relates only to emissions from a 
single source category associated with coke oven batteries, not with 
total facility risk. If we adopt the facilitywide approach when the 
residual risk review for other source categories at coke plants is 
conducted, we plan to evaluate the risk associated with emissions from 
the other source categories. Moreover, we propose that an ample margin 
of safety should be obtained for emissions from the entire facility. If 
we adopt the facilitywide approach, delaying a determination of 
facilitywide risk is, for practical purposes, a necessity. First, EPA 
has only recently promulgated MACT standards for other emission points 
at coke oven facilities (i.e., pushing, quenching, and battery stacks) 
and lacks information on what actual emissions will be once those 
standards take effect. Such information is directly relevant to 
assessing ample margin of safety (from the standpoint of both risk, 
technical feasibility, and cost). Second, at least one of the 
facilities involved in the present proposal contains a LAER battery as 
well as a MACT battery. Facilitywide determinations of risk for such 
facilities necessarily must be delayed due to the statutory delay for 
assessing residual risk from LAER batteries.
    Finally, delaying facilitywide risk determinations appears to have 
some support in the legislative history of CAA section 112(f). That 
history suggests that although ``residual risk standards shall be 
sufficient to protect the most exposed person with an ample margin of 
safety from the combined hazardous emissions of an entire major 
source,'' EPA need not do so in a single step.\13\ Rather, since the 
statute establishes a staggered schedule for issuing standards:

    \13\ Legislative History at 868 (Senate Debate on Conference 
Report, emphasis added).

    * * * the residual risk standards for such other categories do 
not have to be set until the prescribed later dates, but the 
standards for the categories in the first group must be sufficiently 
stringent so that when all residual risk standards have been set, 
the public will be protected with an ample margin of safety from the 
combined emissions of all sources within a major source.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.

    Here, as shown in Table 1 of this preamble, EPA has considered 
total baseline emissions and there is ``sufficient room so that the 
combined risks from all parts of [coke oven batteries] do not exceed 
the ample margin of safety level.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 868-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. What Determination Is EPA Proposing Pursuant to CAA Section 
112(d)(6)?

    Section 112(d)(6) requires us to review and revise MACT standards 
as

[[Page 48351]]

necessary every 8 years, taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that have occurred during that 
time. If we find relevant changes, we may revise the MACT standards and 
develop additional standards.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Technical review of LAER track standards occurs on a 
different time frame than MACT track batteries. Section 112(i)(8)(C) 
requires such review by January 2007. Thus, we are not considering 
any changes to LAER track battery standards in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA does not read the provision as requiring another analysis 
of MACT floors for existing and new sources. First, there is nothing in 
the language of section 112(d)(6) that speaks clearly to the issue of 
whether or not another floor analysis is required. Indeed, the 
requirement that EPA consider ``practices, processes, and control 
technologies'' suggests that no additional floor determination is 
required, since it omits mention of ``emission limitation achieved,'' 
the critical language in section 112(d)(3) triggering the requirement 
to determine floors for existing sources. Our position that floors are 
not required to be redetermined is further demonstrated by the fact 
that the provision for periodic review of the MACT standards was 
included in the 1990 draft legislation (i.e., the House and Senate 
Committee reported bills) before the floor provisions (which came from 
later amendments to the Committee bills) were introduced.
    The EPA also believes that interpreting section 112(d)(6) as 
requiring additional floor determinations could effectively convert 
existing source standards into new source standards. After 8 years, all 
sources would be performing at least at the MACT levels of performance, 
so that the average of the 12 percent of those best performers would be 
performing at a lower level still, probably approaching that of new 
sources. The EPA sees no indication that section 112(d)(6) was intended 
to have this type of inexorable downward ratcheting effect. Rather, we 
read the provision as essentially requiring EPA to consider 
developments in pollution control at the sources (``taking into account 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies,'' in 
the language of section 112(d)(6)), and assessing the costs, non-air 
quality effects, and energy implications of potentially stricter 
standards reflecting those developments.
    EPA also solicits comment on the relationship between section 
112(d)(6) and 112(f). If EPA were to determine that standards adopted 
under section 112(f) (or section 112(d) standards evaluated pursuant to 
section 112(f)) provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent adverse environmental effects, one can reasonably 
question whether further reviews of technological capability are 
``necessary'' (section 112(d)(6)).
    Applying these principles here to by-product coke oven batteries, 
although no new control technologies have been developed since the 
original standards were promulgated, our review of emissions data 
revealed that existing MACT track batteries can achieve a level of 
control for door leaks and topside leaks more stringent than that 
required by the 1993 national emission standards. The emissions data 
for these batteries show that the more stringent limits for LAER track 
batteries have been achieved in practice on a continuing basis through 
diligent work practices to identify and stop leaks. However, as 
discussed in detail in the consideration of more stringent limits in 
this preamble, the data also show that the batteries are not 
consistently ``over-achieving'' the proposed 2010 LAER limits. 
Consequently, emission limits more stringent than those we are 
proposing to establish under section 112(f) (i.e., the 2010 LAER 
limits) are not warranted.
    We also conducted a review of the MACT standards for new by-product 
batteries. Our finding in this review was that there should be no 
change in these standards because we have identified no new 
technologies or control techniques that would support limits more 
stringent than the current standards for new by-product batteries.
    We also reviewed the MACT standards for new and existing non-
recovery batteries. There are no existing non-recovery batteries on the 
MACT track subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.303(a). 
Consequently, we are not revising those requirements.
    Our review of the MACT requirements for new non-recovery batteries 
indicated that additional requirements for new sources are warranted 
based on the performance of the best-controlled existing sources. There 
is one non-recovery plant on the MACT track, and it is subject to the 
limits for new sources in the 1993 national emission standards. The new 
source standard in 40 CFR 63.303(b)(2) requires that this plant install 
a capture and control system for charging emissions. However, at the 
time the national emission standards were developed, no information was 
available that could be used to develop an emissions standard for 
charging emissions. Charging emissions are controlled primarily by 
using a high draft to contain emissions within the oven's combustion 
system, and additional control is provided by capturing and controlling 
any fugitive emissions that escape from the oven. A measure of the 
effectiveness and performance of charging emission control is the 
opacity of the fugitive emissions that escape the oven and its capture 
system. In 1998 and 1999, opacity readings for charging emissions were 
documented at this non-recovery plant. During startup in 1998, the 
plant achieved 20 percent opacity (3-minute average) for 95 percent of 
the charges that were observed. In 1999, the control performance 
improved to 99 percent of the opacity observations less than 20 
percent. When the opacity observations were averaged over five charges, 
the variability was reduced, and a 20 percent opacity limit was 
achieved over 99 percent of the time. The few exceedances of 20 percent 
were caused by equipment malfunctions, changes in the coal grind, or 
inexperienced operators. These data indicate that a limit of 20 percent 
opacity (averaged over five charges) can be achieved, and that such a 
limit ensures that charging emissions are consistently well controlled. 
This limit reflects the performance of the best-controlled similar 
source. Consequently, we are proposing to revise the standards to 
incorporate a limit of 20 percent opacity for charging for new sources.
    This non-recovery plant has a permit requirement that oven damper 
adjustments be made to maximize oven draft during charging, which 
ensures better containment of charging emissions within the combustion 
system. This requirement represents an improvement in control 
technology that should be applied to new sources. Consequently, we are 
proposing a requirement for new non-recovery batteries that the draft 
on the oven be maximized during charging. The proposed revisions would 
also require that records be kept to demonstrate compliance with the 
work practice standard, including procedures for monitoring damper 
position during charging to ensure that the draft is maximized.
    Our review also indicates that the batteries at this plant are 
equipped with a baghouse to control charging emissions. An emission 
limit (in the plant's operating permit) of 0.0081 pounds of PM per ton 
of dry coal (lb/ton) has been achieved by these batteries. 
Consequently, we are proposing an emission limit of 0.0081 lb/ton for 
charging emission controls at new non-recovery batteries. We are also

[[Page 48352]]

proposing a daily observation for visible emissions from the charging 
emissions control device to ensure it operates properly on a continuing 
basis. If any visible emissions are observed, corrective action must be 
taken to find and remedy the cause of the visible emissions. A visible 
emissions observation must be made within 24 hours by EPA Method 9 (40 
CFR part 60, appendix A), and the opacity must be less than 10 percent 
to demonstrate that the corrective action was successful.
    The EPA views all of these proposed changes for charging as 
reflecting developments in practices and control technologies at 
reasonable cost without appreciable non-air environmental impacts. 
Consequently, these proposed requirements for new sources are 
appropriate under section 112(d)(6).
    We also reviewed the current MACT standards for door leaks in 40 
CFR 63.303(b)(1), which require either zero percent leaking doors or 
monitoring the pressure in each oven or common tunnel to ensure the 
ovens are operated under negative pressure. Both of these options are 
based on monitoring doors once each day of operation. The intent of 
these requirements is to assure that no doors leak during normal 
operation. However, as explained earlier in this preamble, following 
these practices does not necessarily result in no leaks. We are 
proposing to amend the MACT standards to clarify this fact, and to 
assure that the extent and number of any such leaks are minimized. At 
the same time, our review indicates that there have been no changes in 
technology or emission control that would warrant more stringent 
emission standards for these sources. Consequently, we are not 
proposing more stringent requirements for coke oven doors under section 
112(d)(6).
    We specifically request your comments on our review of the 1993 
national emission standards and our proposed determinations under CAA 
section 112(d)(6).

K. Why Are We Amending the Requirements in the 1993 National Emission 
Standards for Door Leaks on Non-Recovery Batteries?

    We are proposing to amend the requirements in the 1993 national 
emission standards for door leaks at non-recovery batteries on the MACT 
track to ensure that the existing standards reflect MACT. The current 
MACT standards for door leaks in 40 CFR 63.303(b)(1) require either 
zero percent leaking doors or monitoring the pressure in each oven or 
common tunnel to ensure the ovens are operated under negative pressure. 
The intent of these requirements is to assure that no doors leak during 
normal operation. We recently obtained information from the affected 
facility that indicates certain equipment failures or operating 
problems can temporarily create a positive pressure in a non-recovery 
oven and cause a door to leak. The principal operating problems that 
can cause a door to leak include plugging of an uptake damper 
(resulting in a loss of oven draft) and fouling of the heat exchanger 
used for heat recovery (resulting in a positive back pressure). These 
events are very infrequent and short in duration because the problem is 
quickly remedied (typically in 5 to 15 minutes).
    Our review of the door leak standards indicates that the current 
requirements in the 1993 national emission standards should be 
strengthened to ensure that door leaks do not occur regularly and to 
ensure that when leaks do occur, they are promptly stopped. The current 
standard does not address the rare occurrences when the equipment that 
controls the oven's draft may malfunction and cause minor leakage 
around the door area. We are proposing to supplement the current 
requirements with additional requirements to ensure that the minor 
leaks are promptly corrected.
    The non-recovery plant subject to the MACT standards has developed 
procedures to assure that corrective actions are taken to stop leaks 
within 15 minutes. Problems with uptake dampers and fouled heat 
exchangers are quickly remedied, and the plant has instituted 
preventative measures to minimize their occurrence. Based on the 
plant's current practices, we have developed a proposed revision that 
would require that any door leak be stopped within 15 minutes by taking 
corrective actions. We are also proposing an exception that would allow 
up to 45 minutes to stop the leak for no more than two occurrences per 
battery during any semiannual reporting period. This exception is 
designed to accommodate the situations where 15 minutes may not be 
enough time to identify the cause of the leak and take corrective 
actions to stop the leak. We are allowing up to 45 minutes to stop a 
leak if a worker must enter a cokeside shed to take corrective action. 
After a door leak has been stopped, no additional leaks would be 
allowed from that oven during the remainder of its coking cycle. We are 
proposing monitoring provisions to require that each door be observed 
for visible emissions immediately after charging. We are also proposing 
that the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan be expanded to 
identify failures that create door leaks, develop corrective actions 
for each potential failure, and establish preventative procedures to 
minimize their occurrence. These requirements are designed to ensure 
that even if an infrequent door leak occurs, the leak is stopped 
promptly.
    The primary impact of the proposed amendments on the affected non-
recovery plant would be additional labor to monitor for emissions and 
to identify and correct any problems associated with emissions from 
charging and doors. The revisions would not impose new substantive 
additional controls and are designed to assure that the non-recovery 
plant implements its current procedures on a continuing basis. The 
plant is expected to incur a total annualized cost of about $28,000 per 
year as a result of the proposed revisions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Additional details are provided in the supporting statement 
for the Information Collection Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also clarifying that the work practice requirements for 
charging for existing non-recovery plants also apply to new non-
recovery plants. This was the intent of the original rule; however, the 
requirement is not stated clearly in the 1993 national emission 
standards. This revision will not affect the non-recovery plant subject 
to the new source standards in the 1993 national emission standards 
because the work practice requirements have already been incorporated 
into its operating permit. However, the proposed revision will clarify 
that the work practice requirements apply to non-recovery plants that 
might be constructed in the future.

L. What Are the Estimated Cost Impacts of the Proposed Amendments?

    We evaluated the cost impacts of the proposed amendments for 
existing by-product coke oven batteries and believe that the MACT track 
batteries can achieve the 2010 LAER limits with only a minimal increase 
in cost. Our conclusion is based on a review of inspection data that 
show the level of control that these plants are currently achieving.
    The results of several years of daily compliance determinations 
show that all five MACT track batteries have met the 2010 LAER limits 
for charging and offtakes 100 percent of the time. There should be no 
incremental increase in costs for these emission points.
    The review of the past 3 years of daily compliance determinations 
for door leaks shows that three batteries met the 2010 LAER limits 100 
percent of the

[[Page 48353]]

time; consequently, these batteries will incur very little costs beyond 
those currently being incurred to control door leaks. One plant with 
two batteries had a few excursions of the proposed limit. One of these 
batteries met the limit 99 percent of the time, and the other met it 95 
percent of the time. These two batteries have hand-luted doors, and 
leaks are controlled by applying sealing material. These batteries may 
incur minor increases in labor, supervision, and sealing materials to 
achieve the small improvement in control that is needed.
    Four of the batteries have achieved the 2010 LAER limit for lid 
leaks 100 percent of the time and should incur little additional costs. 
One battery achieved the limit 96 percent of the time and may incur 
some additional cost. However, lid leaks are not difficult to control 
because they only require the application of sealant to a flat 
horizontal surface. Increased diligence in identifying and stopping lid 
leaks may be required. We estimate the cost of additional control of 
door leaks and lid leaks at one plant at $4,500/yr for additional labor 
and materials to identify and seal leaks.
    We also evaluated the cost impacts of the proposed amendments for 
non-recovery batteries. There has been only one new non-recovery plant 
constructed in the past 30 years, and we have no indication that a new 
non-recovery battery will be constructed and operated in the next 5 
years. Consequently, we expect no cost impacts in the near term from 
our proposed requirements for charging for new non-recovery batteries. 
Our proposed amendments for door leaks will affect one non-recovery 
plant. However, this plant is already implementing most of the proposed 
requirements as part of its routine operation. We expect that some 
increased labor will be incurred to identify and correct the infrequent 
occurrence of door leaks. In addition, there will be some burden 
associated with reporting and recordkeeping for these events. We 
estimate that the additional requirements proposed for door leaks will 
result in an increase in total annualized cost of $28,000 per year.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Under the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined 
that this regulatory action is a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because it raises novel legal or policy issues. As such, this action 
was submitted to OMB for Executive Order 12866 review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in 
the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed amendments 
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR No. 1362.05.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed amendments would establish work practice requirements 
designed to improve control of door leaks applicable to all non-
recovery coke oven batteries. The owner or operator also would be 
required to add certain information on malfunctions associated with 
door leaks to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. New non-
recovery batteries also would be required to implement the same work 
practice standards that already apply to existing non-recovery 
batteries. Plant owners or operators would be required to submit an 
initial notification of compliance status and semiannual compliance 
reports. Records would be required to demonstrate compliance with 
applicable emission limitations and work practice requirements. 
Additional requirements would apply to a new non-recovery coke oven 
battery, but none are expected during the 3-year period of this ICR. 
This action would not impose any new or revised information collection 
burden on by-product coke oven batteries subject to the proposed 
amendments. These batteries are currently meeting the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the 1993 national emission 
standards.
    The increased annual average monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 
years of this ICR) is estimated to total 448 labor hours per year at a 
cost of $28,338. This includes an increase of three responses per year 
from one respondent for an average of about 148 hours per response. No 
capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated 
with the proposed monitoring requirements.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 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, including the use of

[[Page 48354]]

automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket 
for the proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number 
OAR-2003-0056. Submit any comments related to the ICR for the proposed 
rule to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
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. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning 
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after August 9, 2004, a comment to OMB 
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 
September 8, 2004. The final rule amendments will respond to any OMB or 
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in 
the 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 not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business having no more than 1,000 employees, as defined by the Small 
Business Administration for NAICS codes 331111 and 324199; (2) a 
government 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 that is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Of the five companies subject to the requirements of the 
proposed amendments, one company (operating a total of three batteries) 
is considered a small entity. However, the proposed amendments will not 
impose any significant additional regulatory costs on that small entity 
because it is already meeting the stricter emissions limitations for 
by-product coke oven batteries included in the proposed rule 
amendments, as well as the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.
    Although the proposed rule amendments will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we 
nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments on 
small entities. We held meetings with industry trade associations and 
company representatives to discuss the proposed amendments and have 
included provisions that address their concerns. We continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed amendments 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 section 202 of the UMRA, the 
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 by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the 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 the 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 the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA 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.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do not contain 
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector in any 1 year. No significant costs are attributable 
to the proposed amendments. Thus, the proposed amendments are not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In 
addition, the proposed amendments do not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because they contain no requirements that 
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, 
the proposed amendments are not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (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 Executive Order 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.''
    The 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 Executive Order 13132. None of the affected 
plants are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on

[[Page 48355]]

one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes.''
    The proposed amendments do not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial 
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. 
No tribal governments own plants subject to the MACT standards for coke 
oven batteries. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the 
proposed amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The proposed amendments are not subject to the Executive Order 
because they are not economically significant as defined in Executive 
Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit or 
identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the Agency may not be 
aware, that assessed results of early life exposure to coke oven 
emissions.

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

    The proposed amendments are not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because 
they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we believe that the proposed 
amendments are not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations 
when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    These proposed amendments involve technical standards. The EPA 
proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D (PM) and 
9 (opacity) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No 
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA 
Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, and 9. One voluntary consensus standard was 
identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA test methods for the 
purposes of the proposed amendments. The voluntary consensus standard 
ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is 
cited in the proposed amendments for its manual method for measuring 
the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas. 
This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10 is an acceptable alternative 
to Method 3B.
    Our search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 14 
voluntary consensus standards applicable to the proposed amendments. 
The EPA determined that 12 of these standards identified for measuring 
PM were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods due to lack of 
equivalency, detail, specific equipment requirements, or quality 
assurance/quality control requirements. The two remaining voluntary 
consensus standards identified in the search were not available at the 
time the review was conducted because they are under development by a 
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by 
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly Method 1) and ASME/
BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot 
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2. Therefore, EPA does not intend 
to adopt these standards for this purpose. Detailed information on the 
EPA's search and review results is included in the docket.
    Section 63.309 of the proposed amendments lists the EPA test 
methods that would be required. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 
63.8(f), a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods or monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA test 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: July 29, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (3) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.685(b), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.4166(a)(3), 
63.4965(a)(3), and 63.5160(d)(1)(iii).
* * * * *

Subpart L--[Amended]

    3. Section 63.300 is amended by:
    a. Redesignating existing paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) as 
(a)(5) through (a)(7); and
    b. Adding new paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.300  Applicability.

    (a) * * *
    (3) [date 90 days after publication of the final rule amendments in 
the Federal Register], for existing by-product coke oven batteries 
subject to emission limitations in Sec.  63.302(a)(3) and for non-
recovery coke oven batteries subject to the emission limitations and 
requirements in Sec.  63.303(b)(3) or (c);
    (4) Upon startup for a new non-recovery coke oven battery subject 
to the

[[Page 48356]]

emission limitations and requirements in Sec.  63.303(b), (c), and (d). 
A new non-recovery coke oven battery subject to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.303(d) is one for which construction or reconstruction 
commenced on or after August 9, 2004;
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.302 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.302  Standards for by-product coke oven batteries.

    (a) * * *
    (3) On and after [date 90 days after publication of the final rule 
amendments in the Federal Register];
    (i) 4.0 percent leaking coke oven doors for each tall by-product 
coke oven battery and for each by-product coke oven battery owned or 
operated by a foundry coke producer, as determined by the procedures in 
Sec.  63.309(d)(1);
    (ii) 3.3 percent leaking coke oven doors for each by-product coke 
oven battery not subject to the emission limitation in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section, as determined by the procedures in Sec.  
63.309(d)(1);
    (iii) 0.4 percent leaking topside port lids, as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1);
    (iv) 2.5 percent leaking offtake system(s), as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1); and
    (v) 12 seconds of visible emissions per charge, as determined by 
the procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(2).
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.303 is amended by:
    a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) as (b)(4) and (b)(5) 
and adding new paragraph (b)(3); and
    b. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.303  Standards for non-recovery coke oven batteries.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) For charging operations, the owner or operator shall implement, 
for each day of operation, the work practices specified in Sec.  
63.306(b)(6) and record the performance of the work practices as 
required in Sec.  63.306(b)(7).
* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in Sec.  63.304, the owner or operator of 
any non-recovery coke oven battery shall meet the work practice 
standards in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall observe each coke oven door after 
charging and record the oven number of any door from which visible 
emissions occur. Emissions from coal spilled during charging or from 
material trapped within the seal area of the door are not considered to 
be a door leak if the owner or operator demonstrates that the oven is 
under negative pressure, and that no emissions are visible from the top 
of the door or from dampers on the door.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, if a coke oven door leak is observed at any time during the 
coking cycle, the owner or operator shall take corrective action and 
stop the leak within 15 minutes from the time the leak is first 
observed. No additional leaks are allowed from doors on that oven for 
the remainder of that oven's coking cycle.
    (i) For no more than two times per battery in any semiannual 
reporting period, the owner or operator may take corrective action and 
stop the leak within 45 minutes (instead of 15 minutes) from the time 
the leak is first observed.
    (ii) The limit of two occurrences per battery specified in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section does not apply if a worker must 
enter a cokeside shed to stop a leaking door under the cokeside shed. 
The owner or operator shall take corrective action and stop the door 
leak within 45 minutes (instead of 15 minutes) from the time the leak 
is first observed. The evacuation system and control device for the 
cokeside shed must be operated at all times there is a leaking door 
under the cokeside shed.
    (d) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery 
shall meet the emission limitations and work practice standards in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere from charging operations any fugitive 
emissions that exhibit an opacity greater than 20 percent, as 
determined by the procedures in Sec.  63.309(j).
    (2) The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any emissions of particulate matter (PM) 
from a charging emissions control device that exceed 0.0081 pounds per 
ton (lbs/ton) of dry coal charged, as determined by the procedures in 
Sec.  63.309(k).
    (3) The owner or operator shall observe the exhaust stack of each 
charging emissions control device at least once during each day of 
operation to determine if visible emissions are present and shall 
record the results of each daily observation or the reason why 
conditions did not permit a daily observation. If any visible emissions 
are observed, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Take corrective action to eliminate the presence of visible 
emissions;
    (ii) Record the cause of the problem creating the visible emissions 
and the corrective action taken;
    (iii) Conduct visible emission observations according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(m) within 24 hours after detecting the 
visible emissions; and
    (iv) Report any 6-minute average, as determined according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(m), that exceeds 10 percent opacity as a 
deviation in the semiannual compliance report required by Sec.  
63.311(d).
    (4) The owner or operator shall develop and implement written 
procedures for adjusting the oven uptake damper to maximize oven draft 
during charging and for monitoring the oven damper setting during each 
charge to ensure that the damper is fully open.
    6. Section 63.309 is amended by adding new paragraphs (j) through 
(m) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.309  Performance tests and procedures.

* * * * *
    (j) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery 
shall conduct a performance test once each week to demonstrate 
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.  63.303(d)(1). The owner or 
operator shall conduct each performance test according to the 
procedures and requirements in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the average opacity of 
five consecutive charges per week for each charging emissions capture 
system if charges can be observed according to the requirements of 
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), except as specified in 
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Instead of the procedures in section 2.4 of Method 9 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A), record observations to the nearest 5 percent at 
15-second intervals for at least five consecutive charges.
    (ii) Instead of the procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A), determine and record the highest 3-minute block 
average opacity for each charge from the consecutive observations 
recorded at 15-second intervals.
    (2) Opacity observations are to start when the door is removed for 
charging and end when the door is replaced.
    (3) Using the observations recorded from each performance test, the 
certified observer shall compute and record the average of the five 3-
minute block averages.
    (k) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery 
shall

[[Page 48357]]

conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations for a charging emissions control device in Sec.  
63.303(d)(2) within 180 days of the compliance date that is specified 
for the affected source in Sec.  63.300(a)(4) and report the results in 
the notification of compliance status. The owner or operator shall 
prepare a site-specific test plan according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7(c) and shall conduct each performance test according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of PM according to the following 
test methods in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of 
the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the 
manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon 
monoxide content of exhaust gas, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and 
Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D, as applicable, to determine the concentration 
of front half PM in the stack gas.
    (2) During each PM test run, sample only during periods of actual 
charging when the capture system fan and control device are engaged. 
Collect a minimum sample volume of 30 dry standard cubic feet (dscf) 
during each test run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a 
performance test. Each run must start at the beginning of a charge and 
finish at the end of a charge (i.e., sample for an integral number of 
charges).
    (3) Determine and record the total combined weight of tons of dry 
coal charged during the duration of each test run.
    (4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep) for 
each test run using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09AU04.000


Where:

Ep = Process weighted mass emissions of PM, lb/ton;
C = Concentration of PM, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
T = Total time during a run that a sample is withdrawn from the stack 
during charging, hr;
P = Total amount of dry coal charged during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound (gr/lb).

    (l) The owner or operator of a new non-recovery coke oven battery 
shall conduct subsequent performance tests for each charging emissions 
control device subject to the PM emissions limit in Sec.  63.303(d)(2) 
at least once during each term of their title V operating permit.
    (m) Visible emission observations of a charging emissions control 
device required by Sec.  63.303(d)(3)(iii) must be performed by a 
certified observer according to Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) 
for one 6-minute period.
    7. Section 63.310 is amended by adding new paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.310  Requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.

* * * * *
    (j) The owner or operator of a non-recovery coke oven battery 
subject to the work practice standards for door leaks in Sec.  
63.303(c) shall include the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) 
and (2) of this section in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (1) Identification of potential malfunctions that will cause a door 
to leak, preventative maintenance procedures to minimize their 
occurrence, and corrective action procedures to stop the door leak.
    (2) Identification of potential malfunctions that affect charging 
emissions, preventative maintenance procedures to minimize their 
occurrence, and corrective action procedures.
    8. Section 63.311 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding new paragraphs (b)(3) 
through (7);
    b. Revising paragraph (c)(1) and adding new paragraph (c)(3);
    c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) and adding new paragraphs 
(d)(4) through (9); and
    d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) and adding new paragraphs 
(f)(1)(iv) through (ix).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.311  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Statement signed by the owner or operator, certifying that a 
bypass/bleeder stack flare system or an approved alternative control 
device or system has been installed as required in Sec.  63.307.
    (2) * * *
    (3) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that all 
work practice standards for charging operations have been met as 
required in Sec.  63.303(b)(3).
    (4) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that all 
work practice standards for door leaks have been met as required in 
Sec.  63.303(c).
    (5) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that the 
information on potential malfunctions has been added to the startup, 
shutdown and malfunction plan as required in Sec.  63.310(j).
    (6) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, that all applicable 
emission limitations in Sec.  63.303(d)(1) and (2) for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery have been met. The owner or operator shall 
also include the results of the PM performance test required in Sec.  
63.309(k).
    (7) Statement, signed by the owner or operator, certifying that all 
work practice standards in Sec.  63.303(d)(3) and (4) for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery have been met.
    (c) * * *
    (1) Intention to construct a new coke oven battery (including 
reconstruction of an existing coke oven battery and construction of a 
greenfield coke oven battery), a brownfield coke oven battery, or a 
padup rebuild coke oven battery, including the anticipated date of 
startup.
* * * * *
    (3) Intention to conduct a PM performance test for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.303(d)(2). The owner or operator shall provide written notification 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(b).
    (d) * * *
    (1) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that no coke 
oven gas was vented, except through the bypass/bleeder stack flare 
system of a by-product coke oven battery during the reporting period or 
that a venting report has been submitted according to the requirements 
in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction event did not occur for a coke oven battery 
during the reporting period or that a startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction event did occur and a report was submitted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.310(e).

[[Page 48358]]

    (3) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that work 
practices were implemented if applicable under Sec.  63.306.
    (4) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work 
practices for non-recovery coke oven batteries were implemented as 
required in Sec.  63.303(b)(3).
    (5) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all coke 
oven door leaks on a non-recovery battery were stopped according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.303(c)(2) and (3). If a coke oven door leak 
was not stopped according to the requirements in Sec.  63.303(c)(2) and 
(3), or if the door leak occurred again during the coking cycle, the 
owner or operator must report the information in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The oven number of each coke oven door for which a leak was not 
stopped according to the requirements in Sec.  63.303(c)(2) and (3) or 
for a door leak that occurred again during the coking cycle.
    (ii) The total duration of the leak from the time the leak was 
first observed.
    (iii) The cause of the leak (including unknown cause, if 
applicable) and the corrective action taken to stop the leak.
    (6) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that the 
opacity of emissions from charging operations for a new non-recovery 
coke oven battery did not exceed 20 percent. If the opacity limit in 
Sec.  63.303(d)(1) was exceeded, the owner or operator must report the 
number, duration, and cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, 
if applicable), and the corrective action taken.
    (7) Results of any PM performance test for a charging emissions 
control device for a new non-recovery coke oven battery conducted 
during the reporting period as required in Sec.  63.309(l).
    (8) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work 
practices for a charging emissions control device for a new non-
recovery coke oven battery were implemented as required in Sec.  
63.303(d)(3). If a Method 9 visible emissions observation exceeds 10 
percent, the owner or operator must report the duration and cause of 
the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), and the 
corrective action taken.
    (9) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work 
practices for oven dampers on a new non-recovery coke oven battery were 
implemented as required in Sec.  63.303(d)(4).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Records of daily pressure monitoring, if applicable according 
to Sec.  63.303(a)(1)(ii) or Sec.  63.303(b)(1)(ii).
    (ii) Records demonstrating the performance of work practice 
requirements according to Sec.  63.306(b)(7). This requirement applies 
to non-recovery coke oven batteries subject to the work practice 
requirements in Sec.  63.303(a)(2) or Sec.  63.303(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (iv) Records to demonstrate compliance with the work practice 
requirement for door leaks in Sec.  63.303(c). These records must 
include the oven number of each leaking door, total duration of the 
leak from the time the leak was first observed, the cause of the leak 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), the corrective action taken, 
and the amount of time taken to stop the leak from the time the leak 
was first observed.
    (v) Records to demonstrate compliance with the work practice 
requirements for oven uptake damper monitoring and adjustments in Sec.  
63.303(c)(1)(iv).
    (vi) Records of weekly performance tests to demonstrate compliance 
with the opacity limit for charging operations in Sec.  63.303(d)(1). 
These records must include calculations of the highest 3-minute 
averages for each charge, the average opacity of five charges, and, if 
applicable, records demonstrating why five consecutive charges were not 
observed (e.g., the battery was charged only at night).
    (vii) Records of all PM performance tests for a charging emissions 
control device to demonstrate compliance with the limit in Sec.  
63.303(d)(2).
    (viii) Records of all daily visible emission observations for a 
charging emission control device to demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements limit in Sec.  63.303(d)(3).
    (ix) Records to demonstrate compliance with the work practice 
requirements for oven uptake damper monitoring and adjustments in Sec.  
63.303(d)(4).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-17787 Filed 8-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P