[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55684-55757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13186]



[[Page 55683]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 129

July 5, 2024

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 55684]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051; FRL-8471-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV19


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
conducted for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery 
Stacks (PQBS) source category and the periodic technology review for 
the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) source category NESHAP. The EPA is 
finalizing a determination that risks due to emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) from the PQBS source category are acceptable and that 
the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 5, 2024, except for 
amendatory instruction 3, which is effective July 15, 2024. The 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register beginning July 
5, 2024. The IBR of certain other material listed in the rule was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0085 for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks 
(PQBS) source category and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 for the Coke Oven 
Batteries (COB) source category. All documents in the docket are listed 
on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday 
through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (MD-243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5251; email address: 
[email protected]. For specific information regarding the risk 
modeling methodology, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Michael Moeller, Health 
and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2766; 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the technology review for the PQBS 
NESHAP, we are finalizing new maximum achievable control technology 
standards for unregulated HAP or sources of HAP and a 20 percent 
opacity limit for bypass/waste heat stacks at heat and/or nonrecovery 
(HNR) facilities. Under the technology review for the COB NESHAP, we 
are lowering the limits for leaking doors, lids, and offtakes at by-
product (ByP) facilities to reflect improvements in practices, 
processes, or technology, a requirement for fenceline monitoring for 
benzene (as a surrogate for coke oven emissions) with a requirement to 
conduct a root cause analysis and corrective action upon exceeding an 
action level of benzene; a revised equation to estimate emissions from 
leaks of ByP oven doors; a requirement of zero leaking oven doors at 
HNR facilities and pressure monitoring in either oven or common 
tunnels. We are finalizing the removal of exemptions for periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction consistent with a 2008 court 
decision, clarifying that the standards apply at all times; and the 
addition of electronic reporting for performance test results and 
compliance reports.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

1-BP 1-bromopropane
ACI activated carbon injection
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APCD air pollution control device
B/W bypass/waste heat
BDL below detection limit
BTF beyond-the-floor
ByP coke production process with by-product chemical recovery
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CBRP coke by-product chemical recovery plant
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COB coke oven batteries
CE Cost Effectiveness
COE coke oven emissions
CRA Congressional Review Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
D/F dioxin and furans
EAV equivalent annualized value
EDL estimated level of detection
EDT Eastern Daylight Time
EIA economic impact analysis
EMPC estimated maximum potential concentration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HCN hydrogen cyanide
HEM human exposure model
HF hydrogen fluoride
HNR heat and nonrecovery (i.e., no chemical recovery), or 
nonrecovery with no heat recovery
HQ hazard quotient
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
LDAR leak detection and repair
LEAN Louisiana Environmental Action Network
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NA not applicable
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
ND number of doors
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O2 oxygen dioxide
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget

[[Page 55685]]

OP Office of Policy
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PDF portable document format
PLD percent leaking doors
PLDbench percent leaking doors from the bench
PLDbench-only percent leaking doors from the bench only
PLDyard percent leaking doors from the yard
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppbw parts per billion by weight
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
PQBS pushing, quenching, and battery stacks
RCACA root cause analysis and corrective action
REL reference exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR risk and technology review
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SSMP site-specific monitoring plans
TBD to be determined
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
URE unit risk estimate
U.S. United States
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
VOC volatile organic compound
VOHAP volatile organic HAP
WAS wet alkaline scrubber

    Background information. On August 16, 2023, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) 
based on our risk and technology review (RTR), and for the Coke Oven 
Batteries (COB) NESHAP based on our technology review. In this action, 
we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rules. We summarize 
some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the 
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of 
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to 
those comments is available in the document, Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic 
Technology Review,\1\ hereafter referred to as the ``Response to 
Comment'' document, which is available in the dockets for this final 
action (Docket ID No's. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051). 
A ``track changes'' or ``redline strikeout'' version of the regulatory 
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in 
the dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are coke ovens, what are the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven 
Batteries source categories, and how do the NESHAP regulate HAP 
emissions from the source categories?
    C. What changes did we propose for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven 
Batteries source categories in our August 16, 2023, proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source 
category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
reviews for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and 
Battery Stacks and Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    E. What are the final rule amendments addressing electronic 
reporting?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the 
amendments?
    G. What are the final rule amendments addressing adding 1-
bromopropane to list of HAP?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks 
and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries 
Source Categories
    C. CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category
    D. Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) for the 
NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and 
the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
    E. Other Issues
    F. Compliance
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments 
to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks 
(PQBS) source category and NESHAP for the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) 
source category. The purpose of this final action is to fulfill the 
EPA's statutory obligations pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 
112(d)(2), (d)(3) and (d)(6) and improve the emissions standards for 
the COB and PQBS source categories based on information regarding 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies 
(``technology review'').
    In addition, this action fulfills the EPA's statutory obligations 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) to evaluate the

[[Page 55686]]

maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the PQBS 
source category to determine whether additional standards are required 
to address any remaining risk associated with hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emissions from this PQBS source category (``residual risk 
review'').
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
    Under the residual risk review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA 
section 112(f)(2), the EPA estimated the inhalation maximum individual 
risk (MIR) for cancer (based on current actual emissions levels) due to 
HAP emissions from PQBS sources is 9-in-1 million, and the MIR based on 
allowable emissions was slightly higher (10-in-1 million). All 
estimated noncancer risks are below a level of concern. Based on these 
risk results and subsequent evaluation of potential controls (e.g., 
costs, feasibility and impacts) that could be applied to reduce these 
risks even further, we are promulgating a determination that risks due 
to HAP emissions from the PQBS source category are acceptable and the 
PQBS NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. Therefore, we are not finalizing amendments under CAA section 
112(f)(2).
    Under the technology review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6), and consistent with the Louisiana Environmental 
Action Network (LEAN) court decision,\2\ the EPA is finalizing MACT 
standards for previously unregulated HAP emissions pursuant to CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and 112(h). The EPA identified unregulated 
HAP and emissions source combinations from PQBS sources,as follows: 
acid gases (AG) (i.e., the sum of hydrochloric acid and hydrofloric 
acid), dioxin and furans (D/F), formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), 
mercury (Hg), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and volatile 
organic HAP (VOHAP) from pushing operations; AG, D/F, HCN, Hg, PAH, 
particulate matter (PM) nonmercury HAP metals (e.g., lead and arsenic), 
and VOHAP from by-product (ByP) coke facility battery stacks; AG, 
formaldehyde, Hg, PAH, and PM nonmercury metals from heat and/or 
nonrecovery (HNR) facilities' heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) 
main stacks; AG, formaldehyde, Hg, PAH, PM nonmercury metals, and VOHAP 
from HNR facilities' bypass/waste heat (B/W) stacks. In this action, 
under the authority of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h), we 
are finalizing MACT floor standards (i.e., the minimum stringency level 
allowed by the CAA) for these previously unregulated HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also under the technology review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA also is setting a 20 percent opacity 
limit for HNR B/W stacks to be measured weekly. The EPA did not 
identify any other cost-effective options to reduce emissions from 
currently regulated sources under the PQBS NESHAP.
    The EPA is finalizing amendments under the technology review for 
the COB NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to include: (1) lower 
emission leak limits for ByP facility coke oven doors, lids, and 
offtakes; (2) for ByP facilities, continuous fenceline monitoring for 
benzene along with an action level for benzene (as a surrogate for coke 
oven emissions) and a requirement for root cause analysis and 
corrective actions (RCACA) if the action level is exceeded; (3) for HNR 
facilities, a requirement to demonstrate that there are zero leaks from 
their oven doors, as well as to ensure negative pressure in the ovens 
or common tunnels; and (4) a revised equation to estimate emissions 
from leaks of ByP oven doors that better represents the current 
industry emissions. The EPA did not identify any other cost-effective 
options to reduce emissions from currently regulated sources under the 
COB NESHAP.
    We conducted a demographics analysis that indicates that the 
population within 10 kilometers (km) of the coke oven facilities with 
whole facility cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 
predominantly white (62 percent versus 60 percent nationally). The 
population with whole facility cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million is 30 percent African American compared to the national 
average of 12 percent. The population with whole facility cancer risks 
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million living within 10 km of the two 
facilities located in Alabama is 56 percent African American, which is 
significantly higher than the national average. The population with 
whole facility cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million 
also is above the national average for the percent of the population 
living below poverty (17 percent versus a 13 percent national average).
    In addition, we are finalizing: (1) the removal of exemptions for 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) consistent with a 
2008 court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), and clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times; 
and (2) the addition of requirements for electronic reporting of 
performance test results and compliance reports for both NESHAP and 
fenceline monitoring reports for the COB NESHAP.
3. Costs and Benefits
    Cost impacts will occur due to the required source testing that 
includes: testing every 5 years to demonstrate compliance with the 
promulgated MACT floor standards for PQBS; weekly opacity testing of 
HNR B/W heat stacks; daily visible leak testing of HNR ovens doors; and 
fenceline monitoring at ByP facilities. The total costs for the rules 
are estimated to be $4.0 million per year for the 11 operating 
facilities ($2023), with $500,000 per facility, on average for the five 
HNR facilities and $250,000 per facility, on average, for the 6 ByP 
facilities. The testing to demonstrate compliance with the MACT limits 
is estimated to be $3.3 million total for the 11 operating facilities, 
with $300,000 per facility on average. The HNR B/W stack opacity 
testing is estimated to be $22,000 total for the five HNR facilities, 
with $4,400 per facility on average. The HNR daily door leak testing 
with EPA Method 303A is estimated to be $105,000 total for the five HNR 
facilities, with $21,000 per facility on average. The fenceline 
monitoring costs are estimated to be $640,472 for the six ByP 
facilities, with $107,000 per facility on average.
    The EPA has not quantified any benefits associated with this final 
rule because all covered facilities are expected to already have HAP 
emissions levels that are below the final limits, based on facility 
data available to the EPA. However, the EPA anticipates that this final 
rule's new requirements will increase the likelihood of facilities 
successfully detecting any HAP emissions in excess of the specified 
limits, allowing for earlier corrective action and thus preventing 
pollution increases that could otherwise occur. The potential public 
health benefits associated with such prevention are difficult to 
estimate, given that they correspond to hypothetical scenarios of 
emissions beyond those indicated by current facility data, and are thus 
not quantified in EPA's analysis.
4. Community Outreach
    The EPA held a virtual public hearing on August 31, 2023, from 
11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. eastern daylight time (EDT), where 37 speakers 
provided oral comments. The EPA held a virtual webinar on September 14, 
2023, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. EDT, where 34 registrants 
participated.

[[Page 55687]]

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                NESHAP          NAICS \a\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,   40 CFR part 63,     331110 Iron and
 and Battery Stacks.               subpart CCCCC.      Steel Mills and
                                                       Ferroalloy
                                                       Manufacturing.
Coke Oven Batteries.............  40 CFR part 63,     324199 All Other
                                   subpart L.          Petroleum and
                                                       Coal Products
                                                       Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission and 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action 
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by 
September 3, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards and must reflect the maximum degree of 
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In 
developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to 
consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or 
techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume 
of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, referred to as ``beyond-the-
floor'', based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to

[[Page 55688]]

undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology 
review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we 
must review the technology-based standards and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years, 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review, the EPA 
is not required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established in 
earlier rulemakings. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 
529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, 
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost 
in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6). The EPA is required to address regulatory gaps, such as 
missing standards for listed air toxics known to be emitted from the 
source category, and any new MACT standards must be established under 
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), or, in specific circumstances, CAA 
sections 112(d)(4) or (h).\3\ Under the residual risk review, we must 
evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the 
technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk 
review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-
based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 
residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not 
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(f).\4\ For more information on the statutory authority for this 
rule, see 88 FR 55858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \4\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are coke ovens, what are the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries 
source categories, and how do the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 
the source categories?

    Coke ovens are chambers of brick or other heat-resistant material 
in which coal is heated to separate the gas, water, and tar in coal to 
produce coke, a fuel and source of carbon used in steelmaking. The 
coking process takes place at two types of facilities: (1) ByP 
facilities, where chemical by-products are recovered from coke oven 
emissions (COE), a CAA section 112(b) listed HAP, in coke oven exhaust 
at a co-located coke byproduct chemical recovery plant (CBRP); or (2) 
HNR facilities, where chemicals are not recovered (and, therefore, are 
called ``nonrecovery'' facilities), but heat may be recovered from the 
exhaust from coke ovens in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). 
There are 12 coke facilities in the United States (U.S.), with 11 of 
these currently operating. Seven of these facilities use the ByP 
process and five use the HNR process. Of the five HNR facilities, four 
have HRSGs and one does not. For additional background information on 
the source categories see the proposal preamble (88 FR 55858).
    The COB NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart L), promulgated in 1993, 
set emission limits (via limiting the number of seconds of visible 
emissions (VE)) from doors, lids, and offtakes at HNR facilities and 
any new ByP facilities to 0 percent leaking. The NESHAP for PQBS (40 
CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) were promulgated on April 14, 2003. The 
PQBS NESHAP established emissions standards for pushing coke out of 
ovens, quenching hot coke, and battery stacks of oven combustion.
    For nonrecovery facilities, i.e., facilities that do not recover 
chemicals, operating before 2004, the 1993 COB NESHAP required good 
operating and maintenance practices to minimize emissions during 
charging. The 1993 promulgated requirement for charging affected only 
SunCoke's Vansant (Virginia) facility, which is a nonrecovery coke 
facility, and also does not recover heat. For the nonrecovery 
facilities that recover heat that began operating after 2004, which 
includes the other four HNR facilities and any future HNR facilities, 
the NESHAP regulates charging via PM and opacity limits, requires a PM 
control device, and establishes work practices for minimizing VE during 
charging.
    For ByP facilities, the COB NESHAP regulates emissions occurring 
during the charging of coal into the ovens and from leaking oven doors, 
leaking topside charging port lids, and leaking offtake ducts. The 
charging process for ByP facilities includes opening the lids on the 
charging ports on the top of the tall narrow ovens and discharging coal 
from hoppers of a car that positions itself over the oven port and 
drops coal into the oven. The COB NESHAP limits the number of seconds 
of VE during a charge at ByP facilities, as determined by measurements 
made according to EPA Method 303.
    The emissions from leaks at ByP batteries are regulated under the 
COB NESHAP by limits on the percent of doors, lids, and offtakes that 
leak COE. The emissions from leaks at HNR batteries are regulated under 
the COB NESHAP by limits on leaks only from oven doors. At HNR 
facilities, coal is charged into doors on one end of a long horizontal 
oven and pushed out the other end through another door at the other end 
of the oven. The offtake system at ByP facilities includes ascension 
pipes and collector main offtake ducts that are located on the top of 
the coke oven and battery. At HNR facilities, a common tunnel collects 
exhaust from the batteries and also is located on the top of the coke 
oven and battery. The common tunnels are equipped with afterburners 
that burn any remaining organics in the coke oven exhaust as it travels 
through the common tunnel. The common tunnel routes exhaust from the 
batteries to either HRSG or bypass/waste heat stacks depending on 
whether there are HRSG at the facility and whether the HRSG are 
operating.
    The standards for the COB NESHAP are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart L. The COB NESHAP limits for leaks from doors, lids, and 
offtakes, and the requirements for charging are based on the regulatory 
``track'' of the facilities. The facilities were required by CAA 
section 112(i)(8) to choose either the MACT track or the lowest 
achievable emissions rate (LAER) track by 1993 (58 FR 57898). There are 
no longer any ByP facilities on the MACT track operating today. Of the 
eleven operating coke facilities, all seven ByP facilities are on the 
LAER track and one HNR facility (SunCoke's Vansant plant) is on the 
LAER track; the remaining four HNR facilities are on the MACT track. 
Any future coke facilities of any type (HNR or ByP) would be on the 
MACT track,\5\ but no additional ByP facilities are expected in the 
future due to the requirement for 0 percent leaking doors, lids, and 
offtakes (as determined by EPA Method 303) for new facilities under the 
COB NESHAP. The positive pressure operation of ByP ovens likely makes 
it impossible to achieve zero leaks with the current ByP coke oven 
technology. Therefore, any new facilities would be expected to be only 
the HNR type, which operate under negative pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CAA section 112(i)(8)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards for the Coke PQBS NESHAP are codified at 40 CFR part 
63,

[[Page 55689]]

subpart CCCCC and apply to both ByP and HNR facilities. The battery 
stacks are located only at ByP facilities. The proposed amendments to 
the Coke PQBS NESHAP added MACT limits for HNR HRSG main stacks and HNR 
B/W stacks, which are located only at HNR facilities.

C. What changes did we propose for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries 
source categories in our August 16, 2023, proposal?

    On August 16, 2023, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the NESHAPs for PQBS and COB, 40 CFR part 63, 
subparts CCCCC and L, respectively, that took into consideration the 
RTR analysis for the PQBS NESHAP and technology review for the COB 
NESHAP. We proposed:
     17 new MACT standards for previously-unregulated HAP 
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
     Opacity limit of 10 percent for the HNR B/W stacks and 
requirement for daily observation of B/W stacks during charging to 
determine if VE are present.
     Zero leaking oven doors at HNR oven batteries, as 
determined by EPA Method 303A, which relies on observing VE emanating 
from the ovens; and also monitoring pressure both in the ovens and the 
common tunnel, instead of choosing one or the other points to measure 
pressure and instead of choosing either 0 oven door leaks or pressure 
monitoring, as the current rule allows.
     Fenceline monitoring for benzene (as a surrogate for COE) 
along with an action level for benzene and a requirement for RCACA if 
the action level is exceeded.
     Lower limits for allowable leaks from coke oven doors, 
lids, and offtakes at ByP facilities.
     Removal of exemptions for periods of SSM consistent with a 
2008 court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), and clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times.
     Addition of electronic reporting for performance test 
results and compliance reports for both NESHAP.

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations for: (1) the CAA 
sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6) residual risk and technology review for 
the NESHAP for the PQBS source category; (2) the CAA section 112(d)(6) 
technology review for the NESHAP for the COB source category; and (3) 
other changes to the NESHAP, including the removal of SSM exemptions 
and addition of electronic reporting.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?

    Considering the health risk information and factors discussed in 
the August 2023 proposed rule for the PQBS NESHAP, the EPA is 
finalizing a determination that the risks for this source category 
under the current NESHAP provisions are acceptable pursuant to CAA 
section 112(f). We did not identify any potential cost-effective 
controls or other measures to reduce risk further under our CAA section 
112(f) risk review. Therefore, based on all of the information 
presented in the proposed rule and in this final rule preamble, we 
conclude that the current standards in the PQBS NESHAP provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and are finalizing no changes 
based on the risk review. Furthermore, based on our screening 
assessment of environmental risk presented in section IV.B.4. of the 
August 2023 proposed rule preamble, we have determined that HAP 
emissions from the Coke Ovens: PQBS source category do not result in an 
adverse environmental effect, and we are finalizing that it is not 
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews 
for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks 
and Coke Oven Batteries source categories?

    As part of the technology review for the PQBS source category, we 
identified regulatory gaps (previously unregulated processes or 
pollutants) and are establishing new standards to fill those gaps, as 
described in section III.C. and IV.C. of this preamble. We also are 
requiring HNR B/W stacks to meet a limit of 20 percent opacity to be 
measured weekly at HNR B/W stacks and weekly at HRSG bypass stacks if 
operating.
    For the COB source category, to address fugitive emissions at COB 
facilities as part of the technology review, we are finalizing a 
requirement for a work practice based on the results of fenceline 
monitoring for benzene at ByP facilities. The work practice has an 
action level of 7 microgram per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) of benzene 
(as a surrogate for COE) with a requirement for RCACA if the action 
level is exceeded. We also identified improvements in control of ByP 
battery leaks and are finalizing reduced allowable limits for the 
percent of leaking doors, lids, and offtakes at ByP facilities. We are 
finalizing a requirement to demonstrate there are zero leaking oven 
doors at HNR facilities, as determined by EPA Method 303A, and 
requiring either oven pressure or common tunnel pressure monitoring at 
HNR facilities during the main parts of the oven cycle. Lastly, we are 
finalizing a revised equation for estimating leaks from ByP coke oven 
doors based on our evaluation of the historic equation developed from 
1981 coke oven leak data supplemented with recent coke oven leak data, 
and also considering comments received.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?

    We are finalizing 18 MACT floor standards \6\ unregulated HAP and 
process combinations for the NESHAP for PQBS pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) as follows: (1) MACT floor standards for 
AG, HCN, Hg, and PAH from pushing operations for existing and new 
sources; (2) MACT floor standards for AG, HCN, Hg, and PM (as a 
surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals), and a work practice standard for 
battery stacks (based on good combustion in battery waste heat flues) 
for PAH, D/F and VOHAP emissions from battery stacks at ByP facilities 
for existing and new sources; (3) MACT standards for AG, Hg, PAH, and 
PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals) from HNR HRSG main stacks 
for existing and new sources; and (4) MACT standards for AG, 
formaldehyde, Hg, PAH, and PM (as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP 
metals) for HNR B/W stacks. More details are provided in section IV.C. 
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    We are finalizing the removal of exemptions for periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) largely as proposed, consistent with a 
2008 court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), and

[[Page 55690]]

clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times.

E. What are the final rule amendments addressing electronic reporting?

    The EPA is promulgating that owners and operators of coke oven 
facilities, under both the PQBS NESHAP and COB NESHAP, submit 
electronic copies of required performance test reports, periodic 
reports (including fenceline monitoring reports), and periodic 
certifications through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in 
the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the dockets for 
this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0908 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0748). 
The promulgated rule requires that performance test results collected 
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the 
ERT website \7\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format 
generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent 
with the xml schema on the ERT website, and other performance test 
results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the 
attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the quarterly and semiannual compliance reports of the PQBS 
NESHAP source category and the semiannual compliance certification of 
the COB NESHAP source category, the promulgated rule requires that 
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the promulgated templates for 
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\8\ The final 
version of the templates will be available at the CEDRI website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Draft Form 5900-618 Coke Ovens Part 63 Subpart L 
Semiannual Report.xlsx, Draft Form 5900-619 Part 63 Subpart L 
Fenceline Quarterly Report.xlsx, and Draft Form 5900-621 Coke Ovens 
Part 63 Subpart CCCCC Semiannual Report.xlsx, available at Docket 
ID. No EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this final 
rulemaking increases the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, further assists in the protection of public health and 
the environment, improves compliance by facilitating the ability of 
regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by 
facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and 
territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine 
compliance, and ultimately reduces the burden on regulated facilities, 
delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also 
eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \9\ to implement 
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide 
policy \10\ developed in response to the White House's Digital 
Government Strategy.\11\ For more information on the benefits of 
electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews. August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \10\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations. September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \11\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People. May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the final rule 
amendments?

    These final rules are effective upon promulgation. The compliance 
date for the MACT standards for sources in the PQBS NESHAP is January 
5, 2026. For the periodic MACT compliance testing, we are promulgating 
that periodic testing be conducted at the beginning of each permit 
cycle or every 5 years, whichever is shorter. The compliance date for 
opacity limits on HNR B/W stacks is July 7, 2025. The compliance date 
for achieving zero leaks from HNR oven doors and concurrent oven or 
tunnel pressure monitoring is July 7, 2025.
    For fenceline monitoring provisions of the COB NESHAP, the 
compliance date to begin fenceline monitoring is July 7, 2025. The 
compliance date for complying with the revisions to the limits for 
allowable leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes is July 7, 2025.
    The date for complying with the SSM changes is no later than July 
5, 2024 with the exception of recordkeeping provisions. For 
recordkeeping under the SSM, facilities must comply with this 
requirement January 2, 2025. The date for complying with the 
recordkeeping provisions associated with malfunction events is January 
2, 2025.

G. What are the final rule amendments addressing adding 1-bromopropane 
to list of HAP?

    On January 5, 2022, the EPA published a final rule amending the 
list of HAP under the CAA to add 1-bromopropane (1-BP) in response to 
public petitions previously granted by the EPA. (87 FR 393). 
Consequently, as each NESHAP is reviewed, the EPA is evaluating whether 
the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112 HAP list impacts the source 
category. For the PQBS and COB source categories, we concluded that the 
inclusion of 1-BP as a regulated HAP would not impact the 
representativeness of the MACT standard because, based on available 
information, we have no evidence that 1-BP is emitted from this source 
category. No comments were received on this subject for the coke ovens 
NESHAP. As a result, no changes are being promulgated to the PQBS and 
COB NESHAP based on the January 2022 rule adding 1-BP to the list of 
HAP.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and 
the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the Response to 
Comment document,\12\ which is available in the docket for this final 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.

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

[[Page 55691]]

A. Residual Risk Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the NESHAP 
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?

    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review of the PQBS NESHAP and presented the results of this review, 
along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and 
ample margin of safety, in the August 16, 2023, proposed rule for the 
PQBS source category (88 FR 55858). The results of the risk assessment 
for the proposal are presented in table 2 of this preamble. More detail 
is in the residual risk technical support document Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Coke Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source 
Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule.\13\

                Table 2--Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum                               Estimated
                                                       individual     Estimated population   annual cancer
          Risk assessment               Number of      cancer risk    at increased risk of     incidence       Maximum chronic       Maximum screening
                                       facilities    (in 1 million)     cancer >= 1-in-1      (cases per       noncancer TOSHI       acute noncancer HQ
                                                           \a\              million              year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Based on Actual Emissions Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category Emissions..........              14               9  2,900................            0.02  0.1 (arsenic)........  HQREL = 0.6 (arsenic)
Facility-Wide......................              14              50  2.7 million..........             0.2  2 (HCN)..............  HQREL = 0.6 (arsenic)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Based on Allowable Emissions Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category Emissions..........              14              10  440,000..............            0.05  0.2 (arsenic)........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions.

    The results at proposal of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer 
risk assessment indicated that, based on estimates of current actual 
emissions, the MIR posed by the PQBS source category was 9-in-1 million 
driven by arsenic emissions, primarily from bypass/waste heat stacks. 
The total estimated cancer incidence estimated from this source 
category at proposal was 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case 
every 50 years. No people were estimated to have inhalation cancer 
risks greater than 100-in-1 million; the population estimated to be 
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million was 
approximately 2,900. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer target 
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) from inhalation exposure for this 
source category was 0.1 for developmental effects from arsenic 
emissions The acute risk screening assessment of reasonable worst-case 
inhalation impacts indicated a maximum acute hazard quotient (HQ) of 
0.6 based on the REL for arsenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category in Support of the 2023 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. May 
2023. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the inhalation risk assessment at proposal, 
considering MACT-allowable emissions, indicated that the cancer MIR was 
10-in-1 million driven by arsenic emissions, primarily from HNR pushing 
and bypass/waste heat stacks. The total estimated cancer incidence from 
this source category based on allowable emissions was 0.05 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 20 years. No people 
were estimated to have inhalation cancer risks above 100-in-1 million 
due to allowable emissions, and the population exposed to cancer risks 
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million was approximately 440,000. In 
addition, the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI for the source 
category based on allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.2 (for 
developmental effects from arsenic emissions).
    The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk at proposal posed by 
the 14 modeled facilities and based on whole facility emissions was 50-
in-1 million, with COE from coke oven doors (a regulated source in the 
COB NESHAP), driving the whole facility risk. The total estimated 
cancer incidence based on facility-wide emission levels was 0.2 excess 
cancer cases per year. Regarding the noncancer risk assessment, the 
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI posed by whole facility emissions was 
estimated to be 2 (for the neurological and thyroid systems as the 
target organs) driven by emissions of HCN from CBRPs, which are 
emissions sources not included within the source category (PQBS) 
addressed in the risk assessment for this rulemaking nor included in 
the COB NESHAP.
    We weighed all health risk measures and factors, including those 
shown in table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability 
determination and proposed that the risks posed by the PQBS source 
category under the current MACT provisions were acceptable.
    Under the proposed ample margin of safety analysis, we again 
considered all of the health factors evaluated in the acceptability 
determination and evaluated the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the control devices 
and other measures examined under the technology review) that could be 
applied to further reduce risk. We also considered whether, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, 
additional standards are required to prevent an adverse environmental 
effect.
    We proposed that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and that no additional standards are 
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we did 
not propose amendments under CAA section 112(f)(2). However, we noted 
that the proposed beyond-the-floor (BTF) MACT limits for HNR B/W stacks 
would reduce the estimated MIR from 9-in-1 million to 2-in-1 million; 
and the population estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than 
or equal to 1-in-1 million would be reduced from approximately 2,900 to 
390 with the proposed BTF MACT limits. The whole facility cancer MIR 
(the maximum cancer risk posed by all sources of HAP at coke oven 
facilities) would remain unchanged, at 50-in-1 million with BTF MACT 
limits, because the whole facility MIR was driven by the estimated 
actual

[[Page 55692]]

current fugitive emissions from coke oven doors and we did not expect 
reductions of the actual emissions from doors as a result of the 
proposed rule.
2. How did the risk review change for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?
    Changes were made to the risk emission model file used in the risk 
analyses which resulted in small changes in the estimated risk. These 
changes are listed below.
     Removed U.S. Steel Clairton batteries 1 through 3 and 
associated sources that were shut down in 2023.
     Removed Cleveland Cliffs' Follansbee, West Virginia, 
facility because it permanently closed in Spring 2022.
     Removed Cleveland Cliffs' Middletown, Ohio, facility 
because it permanently closed as of 2023.
     Corrected latitude and longitude values for two natural 
gas water heaters at Cleveland Cliffs' Warren, Ohio, facility.
     Corrected the angle of rotation for the byproduct plant 
fugitive source at Cleveland Cliffs' Warren, Ohio, facility.
     Replaced SunCoke's East Chicago facility's HRSG main stack 
(default) emissions with test data that was received too late to model 
for the proposal (received May 2023).
     Incorporated Hg emissions submitted for HNR HRSG main 
stacks from previous tests for SunCoke's Middletown and East Chicago 
(Cokenergy) facilities, which also changed the default average HNR HRSG 
main stack Hg emissions used for two other SunCoke facilities 
(SunCoke's Franklin Furnace and Gateway facilities).
     Incorporated Hg emissions data from previous tests 
submitted by SunCoke for HNR B/W stacks, which changed the Hg emissions 
for SunCoke's Middletown, Vansant, and East Chicago facilities.
     Revised emissions from door leaks based on revisions to 
new equation as a result of comments.
    The results of the risk assessment performed for the final rule 
that incorporates the above changes are shown in table 3 of this 
section. The main difference in the risk estimated for the final rule 
and the proposed rule is the reduction in the whole facility MIR from 
50 to 40-in-1 million, resulting primarily from removing two facilities 
(Cleveland Cliffs' Middleton, Ohio, and Follansbee, West Virginia, 
facilities) that shut down after years of being idle and removing three 
batteries (1,2,3) at U.S. Steel's facility in Clairton, Pennsylvania, 
that were permanently shut down. The baseline PQBS source category MIR 
remained at 9-in-1 million.

                      Table 3--Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, And Battery Stacks Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum                               Estimated
                                                       individual     Estimated population   annual cancer
      Risk assessment scenario          Number of      cancer risk    at increased risk of     incidence       Maximum chronic       Maximum screening
                                       Facilities         (in 1         cancer >= 1-in-1      (cases per       noncancer TOSHI       acute noncancer HQ
                                                       million)\a\          million              year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Based on Actual Emissions Level \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category Emissions..........              12               9  2,600................            0.01  0.1..................  HQREL = 0.6
                                                                                                            (arsenic)............   (arsenic).
Facility-Wide Emissions \b\........              12              40  2.4M.................             0.1  2 (HCN)..............  HQREL = 0.6
                                                                                                                                    (arsenic).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emission.
\b\ See section IV.A. of this preamble for more details on the risk assessment.

    As noted in the proposal, we weigh a range of health risk measures 
and factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk 
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, and risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, 
September 14, 1989). Under the current MACT standards for the PQBS 
source category, the revised risk results indicate that the MIR is 9-
in-1 million, driven by emissions of arsenic. The estimated incidence 
of cancer due to inhalation exposures is 0.01 excess cancer case per 
year. No people are estimated to have inhalation cancer risks greater 
than 100-in-1 million, and the population estimated to be exposed to 
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is approximately 
2,600. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation 
exposure for this source category is 0.1 for developmental effects. The 
acute risk screening assessment of reasonable worst-case inhalation 
impacts indicates a maximum acute HQ of 0.6.
    We conducted a revised assessment of facility-wide (or ``whole-
facility'') risk to characterize the source category risk in the 
context of whole-facility risk. The maximum lifetime individual cancer 
risk based on whole-facility emissions is 40-in-1 million with COE from 
coke oven doors (a regulated source in the COB NESHAP source category) 
driving the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence based on 
facility-wide emission levels is 0.1 excess cancer cases per year. No 
people are estimated to have inhalation cancer risks above 100-in-1 
million due to facility-wide emissions, and the population exposed to 
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million is approximately 
2.4 million people. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI posed 
by whole facility emissions is 2 (for the neurological and thyroid 
systems as the target organs) driven by emissions of HCN from CBRPs, 
which are emissions sources not included within the source category. 
Approximately 10 people are estimated to be exposed to a TOSHI greater 
than 1 due to whole facility emissions. The acute risk screening 
assessment of reasonable worst-case inhalation impacts indicates a 
maximum acute HQ of 0.6.
    We are not finalizing the proposed BTF limit for PM, as a surrogate 
for nonmercury HAP metals, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 
for HRSG waste heat stacks in the PQBS source category for the reasons 
described in section IV.C.4. in this preamble, which would have 
achieved a reduction of the metal HAP emissions (e.g., arsenic and 
lead) as well as a reduction in the estimated MIR due to arsenic from 
these units. Therefore, the overall post control MIR for this source 
category remains at 9-in-1 million. Additionally, the total estimated 
cancer incidence remains unchanged at 0.01 excess cancer cases per 
year, and the maximum modeled chronic noncancer

[[Page 55693]]

TOSHI for the source category remains unchanged at 0.1 (for respiratory 
effects from HCl emissions). The estimated worst-case acute exposures 
to emissions from the PQBS source category is a maximum acute HQ of 
0.6, based on the reference exposure limit (REL) for arsenic. 
Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed 
above, including the uncertainties discussed in the proposal preamble, 
the EPA is finalizing that the risks for this source category under the 
current NESHAP provisions are acceptable.
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we did not change our 
proposal assessment that there were no cost-effective controls or 
measures to further reduce risks due to HAP emissions. Therefore, there 
are no changes for the final rule and the EPA concludes that the final 
rule provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, that 
HAP emissions from the PQBS source category do not result in an adverse 
environmental effect, and that it is not necessary to set a more 
stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect, taking 
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received a few comments on the risk review that offered other 
data and procedures to use rather than the EPA's protocol for risk 
assessment as well as comments on the risk to minority populations. The 
key comments on the risk review are summarized in this section along 
with the EPA's responses to the comments. Other comments received on 
the risk review are summarized along with the EPA's responses in the 
Response to Comment \14\ document, and which is located in the dockets 
to the coke ovens rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated that they believe the EPA does not 
consider the disproportionate exposure and resulting health impacts for 
African Americans and people living below the poverty level to ensure 
an ``ample margin of safety'' to protect public health. The commenter 
requested that the EPA reduce the health risks and advance 
environmental justice for this disproportionate exposure by setting 
standards to ensure an ``ample margin of safety to protect public 
health.'' The commenter asserted that the EPA's own demographic 
analysis reveals that African Americans and people living below the 
poverty level experience a higher level of exposure to toxic air 
pollution, and consequently greater health impacts, compared to their 
representation in the national population. This exposure, combined with 
other types of toxic exposure in their neighborhoods, contributes to 
cumulative health risks. The commenter stated that the EPA's proposal 
does not include any changes to mitigate these health risks or address 
the environmental justice implications of this disproportionate 
exposure. The commenter contended that this conclusion is unlawful and 
arbitrary and runs contrary to the Biden Administration's commitment to 
advancing environmental justice.
    Response: The EPA is directed by Executive Order, to the greatest 
extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice 
part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects of 
its programs, policies, and activities on communities with 
environmental justice concerns. The EPA's environmental justice 
policies promote justice, including access to health impact data, by 
providing information on the types of environmental justice harms and 
risks that are prevalent in communities with environmental justice 
concerns. No such policies mandate consideration of any specific 
factors or particular outcomes from an action, but they direct that 
environmental justice analysis be performed as part of regulatory 
impact analysis, as appropriate, so that the public can have this 
information. The environmental justice analysis is presented for the 
purpose of providing the public with as full as possible an 
understanding of the potential impacts of this final action. The EPA 
notes that analysis of such impacts is distinct from the determinations 
finalized in this action under CAA section 112, which are based solely 
on the statutory factors the EPA is required to consider. The residual 
risk estimated for the PQBS source category, with a cancer MIR of 9-in-
1 million and where 2,600 people are estimated to have a cancer risk 
greater than 1-in-1 million (i.e., risk from 1-in-1 million up to 9-in-
1 million) is considered acceptable for all populations. Also, as noted 
previously in this preamble, we conclude that the PQBS NESHAP provides 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
    Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA include a risk review 
for LAER track ovens in this rulemaking. The commenter contended the 
EPA did not perform the required risk review in 2020 for the COB, 
subpart L, LAER track coke ovens. The EPA mentions in the Technology 
Review Memorandum that the LAER track RTR was to be completed by 2020, 
however, the commenter indicates that it was not. The Fall 2022 
Regulatory Agenda contemplated a risk review for LAER track coke ovens. 
However, the risk review for LAER track coke ovens, which includes 
eight of the nine ByP facilities, is not included in this rulemaking. 
The commenter stated that the EPA has not delivered on its public 
commitments to review risks for LAER track ovens, which include almost 
all facilities with co-located CBRPs.
    Response: The EPA was not able to complete a risk review for LAER 
track sources in time for the court-ordered final rule for the Coke 
PQBS RTR and Technology Review of the COB NESHAP. The EPA will 
undertake the LAER track risk review rulemaking as we plan future 
activities in the steel sector.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    We considered all of the health risk information and factors due to 
emissions from PQBS source category as well as the uncertainties in the 
risk assessment and have determined that the risks for this source 
category under the current PQBS NESHAP provisions are acceptable 
because the cancer MIR of 9-in-1 million is well below the presumptive 
level of acceptability (i.e., 100-in-1 million) and because we did not 
identify any significant noncancer risks from the source category.
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we again considered all 
of the health factors evaluated in the acceptability determination and 
evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies 
and other measures that could be applied to further reduce risk. We 
also considered whether, taking into consideration costs, energy, 
safety, and other relevant factors, additional standards are required 
to prevent an adverse environmental effect. We determined that no 
additional standards are required to provide an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect.

[[Page 55694]]

B. Technology Review for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, 
and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries Source 
Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the NESHAP 
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category?
a. MACT Limits
    To fulfill the requirements of the LEAN decision,\15\ we proposed 
17 new MACT limits \16\ for unregulated HAP and processes pursuant to 
CAA sections 112(d)(2)/(3) based on available test data. These MACT 
limits along with a summary of comments and responses, changes made for 
the final rule, and the rationale for the final standards (i.e., MACT 
limits) are provided in section IV.C. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \16\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Opacity Limit for HNR B/W Stacks
    We proposed a 10 percent opacity limit for HNR B/W stacks during 
charging to be measured daily to limit the PM emissions from these 
sources.
c. Other Aspects of the CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the 
PQBS Source Category (Subpart CCCCC)
    As explained in the August 2023 proposed rule preamble, under the 
technology review for the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6), the EPA did not identify any other cost-effective options to 
reduce emissions from currently regulated sources under the PQBS NESHAP 
apart from those requirements discussed in IV.B.1.a. and IV.B.1.b. of 
this section. Therefore, the EPA did not propose any other changes to 
the PQBS NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). However, the EPA 
solicited comments regarding whether a 1-hour opacity standard would 
identify short-term periods of high opacity that are not identified 
from the current 24-hour standard of 15 percent opacity; and whether 
excessive COE are emitted from ovens after being pushed and before they 
are charged again (i.e., ``soaking emissions'') despite work practice 
standards currently applicable to these emisions.
2. How did the technology review change for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category?
    As described in section IV.C. of this preamble, we are finalizing 
17 \17\ new MACT floor emissions limits pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2)/(3) based on available test data for previously unregulated 
HAP, as identified in the August 2023 proposal (see section IV.C. for 
details). However, some of the limits changed in the final rule to 
reflect additional data submitted by coke oven facilities since the 
limits were developed for the proposal as well as comments received to 
standardize limits which are in units of grains per dry standard cubic 
feet (gr/dscf) to 10 percent oxygen. The revised MACT limits include 
those for: (1) pushing for AG, HCN, and PAH; (2) battery stacks for AG, 
HCN, Hg, and PM to standardize to 10 percent oxygen; (3) HNR main 
stacks for AG, Hg, PAH, and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP), 
and to standardize all limits to 10 percent oxygen; and (4) HNR B/W 
stacks for Hg and PM, and to standardize all limits to 10 percent 
oxygen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also is finalizing a MACT floor work practice standard 
based on ``good combustion,'' pursuant to CAA section 112(h), that 
addresses the previously unregulated organic HAP of D/F, PAH, and VOHAP 
from battery stacks. Details regarding the final MACT standards are 
described in section IV.C. of this preamble.
    In addition, the EPA is finalizing surrogate determinations to 
address the additional unregulated HAP of D/F, formaldehyde, and VOHAP 
from pushing; formaldehyde from HNR main stacks; and VOHAP from HNR B/W 
stacks. Details regarding these surrogates are described in section 
IV.C. of this preamble.
    We also are finalizing a requirement for 20 percent HNR B/W stack 
opacity to reflect current permit requirements that is to be determined 
weekly for HNR waste heat stacks, and weekly for HRSG bypass stacks 
when operating longer than an hour in any week.
    We are not setting 1-hour opacity standards for battery stacks in 
the final rule. We did not propose a 1-hour battery stack limit for 
comment and because there was a wide variation in the data collected 
from facilities for 1-hour opacity from battery stacks, without 
additional information we were not able to determine a 1-hour limit 
that considered all the factors which may influence short-term opacity 
and the impacts the limit might have on facilities not meeting a new 1-
hour standard. Although we received three comments in favor of a 1-hour 
standard, one against, and one comment recommending a work practice to 
be triggered by an (unspecified) 1-hour opacity value, we are not 
setting a 1-hour battery stack opacity standard at this time as part of 
the Technology Review in this rulemaking as a development in practices, 
processes, and control technologies. We also are not including 
additional work practices or new control device requirements for 
soaking emissions in the final rule as part of the technology review. 
The short-term nature of soaking fugitives emissions would prevent 
accurate measurement of a limit for opacity, and the addition of a 
second collecting duct that routes standpipe COE exhaust to a control 
device would present safety hazards to workers and could prove to be 
impractical. We received one comment in favor of setting soaking 
standards and two comments against. See the Response to Comment \18\ 
document for this rulemaking to see details of the comments received on 
both of these sources and the EPA responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the NESHAP 
for Coke Oven Batteries source category?
a. Fenceline Monitoring
    We proposed a fenceline monitoring work practice standard (for 
benzene, as a surrogate for COE). Fenceline monitoring refers to the 
placement of monitors along the perimeter of a facility to measure 
fugitive pollutant concentrations. The proposed fenceline monitoring 
work practice standard would have required owners and operators to 
monitor for benzene and conduct RCACA upon exceeding an ``action 
level'' concentration of 3 [mu]g/m\3\ based on the rolling 12-month 
average ``delta c'', notated as [Delta]c, which represents the 
concentration difference between the highest measured concentration and 
lowest measured concentration for a set of samples in one sampling 
period. The sampling period

[[Page 55695]]

[Delta]c values are averaged over 12 months to create the rolling 
average. We also proposed a procedure for reduced monitoring at a 
particular monitoring location after consistent low measurements at 
that monitor. More details are provided in the August 16, 2023, 
proposed rule preamble.
b. Lower Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes
    Due to improvements in leak control at coke oven facilities, we 
proposed to lower the allowable door leak limits in the NESHAP under 
the technology review for the COB source category pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6). We proposed for facilities with coke production 
capacity of greater than or equal to 3 million tpy of coke to lower the 
allowable leaking door limit from the current limit of 4 percent to 1.5 
percent for tall leaking doors and from 3.3 percent to 1.0 percent for 
``not tall'' leaking doors. These proposed standards would currently 
only apply to the U.S. Steel Clairton facility in Pennsylvania. For COB 
facilities that have coke production capacity less than 3 million tpy 
coke, we proposed an allowable leaking door limit of 3.0 percent 
leaking doors for all sizes of doors that is lower than the limit 
currently in the NESHAP of 4.0 and 3.3 percent leaking doors for tall 
and not tall doors, respectively.
    We also proposed to lower the lid and offtake allowable leak limits 
in the NESHAP due to similar improvements in operation of these sources 
by the coke facilities. The current NESHAP includes limits of 0.4 
percent leaking lids and 2.5 percent leaking offtakes; we proposed a 
revised limit of 0.2 percent for leaking lids and a revised offtake 
limit of 1.2 percent leaking offtakes.
    The proposed changes to the leak limits were meant to ensure 
continued low emissions from doors, lids, and offtakes and reflect 
improvements in performance of the facilities to minimize leaks. We 
estimated that there would be no reductions in actual emissions and 
there would be no control costs, but the lower limits would reduce the 
allowable emissions. More details are provided in the August 16, 2023, 
proposed rule preamble.
c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors, and Concurrent Oven or 
Common Tunnel Pressure Monitoring
    The current NESHAP requires HNR facilities to demonstrate (with 
method 303) that facilities have zero leaks or demonstrate the ovens 
are under negative pressure. We proposed to revise the COB NESHAP for 
new and existing HNR doors (40 CFR 63.303(a)(1) and (b)(1)) to require 
zero leaks from oven doors at HNR coke batteries, as determined by EPA 
Method 303A, which relies on observing VE emanating from the ovens; and 
monitoring pressure both in the ovens and the common tunnel, instead of 
choosing one or the other points to measure pressure and instead of 
choosing either 0 oven leaks or pressure monitoring, as the current 
rule allows. We also proposed to add the requirement to measure both 
pressure in the ovens and common tunnels during the critical periods in 
the entire oven cycle to include, at minimum, during pushing, coking, 
and charging (but not necessarily continuously throughout the oven 
cycle).
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Emissions From Leaking Doors
    We proposed a revised version of the equation than that 
historically had been used to estimate COE from leaking oven doors. The 
proposed revised equation provided more accurate estimates of COE from 
doors that reflected operation of any coke facility, not just the 
facility upon which the equation was derived, and includes facilities 
where advancements in preventing and reducing door leaks have occurred 
since 1981, which is when the equation was first developed. The 
proposed revised equation was as follows:
COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x 
(PLDyard x 0.94bench-only/yard)/100) x (0.023 lb/
hr)

Where:
ND = number of doors
PLD = percent leaking doors
PLDbench = percent leaking doors from bench
PLDyard = percent leaking doors from yard

    A summary of the proposed revised equation and the rationale for 
its development are provided in the August 16, 2023, preamble. A more 
detailed explanation can be found in the memorandum prepared for the 
proposal, Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven 
Doors,\19\ located in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven 
Doors. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 2021. Docket 
ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Opacity From HNR B/W Stacks
    We proposed a new opacity limit of 10 percent on the HNR 
facilities' HNR B/W stacks and to require a daily observation of all 
bypass or waste heat stacks during charging to determine if VE are 
present.
4. How did the technology review change for the NESHAP for the Coke 
Oven Batteries source categories?
a. Fenceline Monitoring
    As a result of comments, we revised the modeling procedures used to 
determine the fenceline action level by including additional offsite 
receptors in our modeling to more appropriately assess the maximum 
concentrations from irregular-shaped facility properties. Due to the 
unique layout of the coke oven sources and the elongated shape of their 
fencelines, the spatial resolution of the default receptor grid was not 
sufficient to accurately estimate the maximum ambient concentration. 
This change in procedures resulted in a change to the action level from 
3 [micro]g/m\3\ to 7 [micro]g/m\3\ of benzene. In addition, in the 
final rule, we are only requiring fenceline monitoring and corrective 
action at ByP coke oven facilities and not at HNR facilities because 
the NESHAP will have sufficient monitoring of VE to ensure minimal HNR 
fugitive emissions and the operation of the coke ovens at HNR 
facilities is under negative pressure, i.e., outside air and oven 
exhaust is pulled through ovens and into the common tunnels by suction, 
which effectively prevents excess fugitive emissions from these 
sources. Furthermore, data received from CAA section 114 information 
request from one HNR facility showed very low benzene at the fenceline 
(a maximum individual sample concentration of 0.7 [micro]g/m\3\ and an 
average [Delta]c of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\), which demonstrates the low 
fenceline impact from these sources. Lastly, for those facilities 
subject to fenceline monitoring, the EPA is providing the opportunity 
to develop site-specific monitoring plans (SSMP) and, when approved by 
the EPA, to monitor and correct for the contribution of benzene 
emissions from co-located sources not subject to a regulation codified 
in 40 CFR part 63 (such as the CBRP) and offsite emissions sources to 
the measured fenceline concentration. The SSMP must include: (1) 
identification of the near-field sources whose emissions, if approved, 
will be subtracted from the monitor concentrations, i.e., offsite and 
co-located sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 
63; (2) the impacted monitoring location(s) and the near-field 
source(s) that impact them; (3) the detailed data reduction criteria 
and calculations; (4) the details of the real-time sampling 
technique(s) being employed and how meteorological conditions will be 
measured; and (5) explanation of how monitoring data are handled during 
adverse conditions.

[[Page 55696]]

b. Lower Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes
    We revised the proposed leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes 
based on information and data obtained from a number of ByP facilities 
in late 2023 on the variability of leaks in daily rolling 30-day 
averages basis, including Cleveland Cliffs' Warren, Ohio, and Burns 
Harbor, Indiana, facilities, EES Coke in Michigan, and U.S. Steel 
Clairton in Pennsylvania; and based on additional information and data 
provided by email from David Alor (of COETF) on February 5, 2024 and 
March 22, 2024 regarding the maximum 30-day rolling averages across 
facilities for the period 2018-2023. These data are available in the 
docket for this action.
    Using the available data, we compared the maximum 30-day rolling 
averages with the maximum annual averages and developed adjustment 
factors to account for variability. Then, we multiplied the adjustment 
factors by the maximum annual average for each door type to obtain the 
revised leak limits. In this final rule, we are promulgating the 
revised leak limits shown in table 4 and in the revised memorandum 
prepared for the final rule, Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source 
Categories-Final Rule,\20\ hereafter referred to as the Technology 
Review Memorandum--Final Rule. These six revised leak limits (shown in 
table 4) are higher than all the maximum 30-day averages in our dataset 
(available in docket). Therefore, we expect facilities will be able to 
comply with these limits without the need for any new controls or 
operating costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, 
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E. 
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.

                                  Table 4--Revised Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes To Account for Variability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Maximum annual    Adjustment     Revised leak
 Source, battery type, No. facilities and   Current NESHAP  Proposed limit   average 2022/    factor for      limits for        Higher or lower than
                 batteries                       limit                           2023         variability     final rule           proposed limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Doors--Higher Capacity ( or = 3M ton/year), Tall Batteries \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 facility, 2 batteries...................            4.0%            1.5%           0.54%            4.6X            2.5%  higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Doors--Higher Capacity ( or = 3M ton/year), Not Tall Batteries \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 facility, 8 batteries...................            3.3%            1.0%           0.39%            4.4X            1.7%  higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Doors--Lower Capacity (< 3M ton/year), Tall Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 facilities 3 batteries..................            4.0%            3.0%        2.9% \b\            1.3X            3.8%  higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Doors--Lower Capacity (< 3M ton/year), Not Tall Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 facilities, 14 batteries................            3.3%            3.0%            2.4%            1.3X            3.2%  higher.
Offtakes--6 facilities....................            2.5%            1.2%            1.3%            1.6X            2.1%  higher.
Lids--6 facilities........................            0.4%            0.2%          0.087%            3.7X           0.32%  higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Tall = doors are equal to or greater than 6 meters (20 ft) in height. ``Not tall'' doors are doors that are not tall.
\b\ This value is the average for 10 months of 2023.

c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors and Concurrent Oven or 
Common Tunnel Pressure Monitoring
    We are not requiring pressure monitoring in both common tunnels and 
ovens in the final rule but instead are allowing a choice between the 
two as in the current rule because we did not receive any comments in 
support of requiring both and we received comments pointing out the 
expense and safety hazards of oven pressure monitoring. We are 
requiring the pressure monitoring in either ovens or tunnels to be 
performed at minimum during pushing, charging, and coking. For the 
final rule, we also are requiring zero leaks from HNR oven doors with 
daily leak testing, as determined by EPA Method 303A, along with 
pressure monitoring in either the common tunnels or the ovens during 
pushing, charging, and coking.
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Emissions From Leaking Doors
    We revised the proposed equation to estimate COE emissions from 
leaking doors based on VE test data from two facilities that the EPA 
received in 2022 and combined these data with VE test results from 
1981, which was when the original equation first was developed. The 
2022 VE testing was performed at Cleveland Cliffs' Burns Harbor and 
U.S. Steel's Clairton facilities and included simultaneous yard and 
bench VE tests at the coal-side and coke-side of two batteries at each 
facility. The 1981 data also had been collected at U.S. Steel Clairton. 
In addition, we received a comment that the equation did not account 
for the case where no VE from oven doors is observed from the yard but 
VE from ovens is observed from the bench. A linear regression analysis 
of the combined 1981 and 2022 data provided a revised equation with an 
intercept that is only dependent on the number of doors (ND) and not 
dependent on yard observations and provides an estimate of emissions 
when yard VE is zero. The final equation is as follows:

COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x 
(PLDyard/100 x 1.5 * PLD(bench-only-to-yard) x 
(0.023 lb/hr)) + 0.7/100 * ND x (0.023 lb/hr),

Where:

ND = number of doors
PLD = percent leaking doors
e. Opacity From HNR B/W Stacks
    For the final rule, we revised the proposed 10 percent opacity 
limit for HNR B/W stacks during charging with daily testing to 20 
percent and moved the requirement from the COB rule (subpart L) to the 
Coke PQBS rule (subpart CCCCC). We also changed the proposed daily 
testing requirement to weekly. For HNR facilities without continuous 
bypass, weekly opacity testing is only required if the bypass event 
continues for more than an hour.

[[Page 55697]]

For HNR facilities with continuous bypass, weekly testing is required.
5. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    The key comments on the proposed results of the technology review 
are summarized in this section along with the EPA's responses to the 
comments. Other comments received on the technology review not included 
here are summarized along with the EPA's responses in the Response to 
Comment \21\ document, which is located in the dockets to the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Fenceline Monitoring
    We received many comments on fenceline monitoring with comments 
both in favor of the proposed requirement and comments that were 
opposed to the requirements or requested significant changes.
    Comment: A commenter asserted the proposed rule would exceed the 
EPA's authority under CAA section 112 because it would impose 
monitoring and a work practice standard on the CBRP, which is not a 
source category listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter 
set forth the reasons why they believe the EPA's authority to 
promulgate ``emission standards'' under CAA sections 112(d) and (f) are 
limited to source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The 
commenter stated that if fenceline monitoring is required in the final 
rule, sampling stations should be located so as to monitor emissions 
only from coke oven batteries and no other sources, and the rule should 
provide that both offsite and onsite non-source category sources should 
be subtracted out in determining compliance with any corrective action 
level. The commenter added that such an exercise would be complicated 
by the fact that benzene in COE from coke oven batteries is entrained 
by the hot, buoyant vertical plume rise. The EPA would also need to 
consider the feasibility of designing and implementing such a program, 
given the close proximity and size of the co-located CBRP and nearby 
offsite sources of benzene emissions. At U.S. Steel Clairton, for 
example, the CBRP is located in between the coke batteries, so 
isolating the impacts from the category-specific sources would be 
difficult, and perhaps impossible.
    Response: As explained in the Federal Register document announcing 
the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP final rule (80 FR 75178) and again in 
the Hazardous Organic NESHAP final rule (known as the ``HON''), 
published on May 16, 2024 (89 FR 42932), the EPA concludes that CAA 
section 112(d)(6) provides the EPA with the authority to require 
fenceline monitoring requirements in NESHAPs. Comments on the proposal 
did not take issue with this fundamental authority, but rather argued 
only that the EPA does not have the authority to apply the work 
practice associated with fenceline monitoring to a non-listed source 
category, in this case the CBRP.
    The fenceline monitoring provisions in the final rule can be 
thought of as consisting of two elements, one being measurement and 
reporting of fenceline concentrations, the other being compliance with 
the RCACA, the latter being the work practice element of the rule. To 
the extent the commenters assert that the EPA's authority is lacking in 
regard to the requirements to measure and report fenceline 
concentrations resulting from emissions from CBRPs, the EPA disagrees. 
By its own terms, the commenter's argument regarding the limits of CAA 
section 112 authority to non-listed source categories pertains only to 
``emission standards,'' which as defined in CAA section 302(k) are 
requirements that ``limit[ ] the quantity, rate, or concentration of 
emissions . . .'' The commenter's own reasoning, therefore, does not 
suggest that the EPA may not require monitoring of non-listed CBRPs.
    In any case, CAA section 114 independently provides ample authority 
to require monitoring of CBRPs. Relevant to the fenceline monitoring 
provisions of this rule, CAA section 114 gives the EPA authority to 
require the owner or operator of a source of emissions to monitor 
emissions, including by periodic sampling, either for the purpose of 
assisting in the development of a CAA section 112 standard, or to 
determine compliance with an existing CAA section 112 standard. The 
fenceline monitoring provisions in the final rule will serve both 
purposes. It will inform the EPA's consideration of whether and how to 
further regulate emissions from CBRP. It may also provide information 
relevant to determining compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart L 
applicable to CBRP. Fenceline monitoring will further these goals 
notwithstanding that the final rule does not require corrective action 
at CBRP, and also notwithstanding that coke oven facilities may seek 
approval of an SSMP that may reduce the likelihood of needing to 
perform a root cause analysis at the CBRP.
    Regarding requirements pertaining to the RCACA work practice 
element of the rule, 40 CFR 63.314(d)(3) of the final rule provides 
that corrective action will not be required at sources not subject to a 
regulation codified in part 63. At present, CBRP are not subject to a 
regulation codified in part 63, and as a consequence there is no 
requirement to conduct corrective action at CBRP until a part 63 
regulation is promulgated for that source category.
    The final rule also provides an opportunity for facilities to 
develop an SSMP, subject to review and approval by the EPA, allowing a 
facility to account for the contribution to measured fenceline 
concentrations due to benzene emissions from offsite or co-located 
sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63 (such as 
CBRP). The owner/operator may choose to develop a technically-sound 
monitoring plan to isolate and distinguish emissions from CBRP from 
other emission sources. The SSMP may be used to correct the measured 
concentration at impacted sample locations, thereby reducing the number 
of exceedances of the action level caused by the CBRP, and also 
reducing the number of root cause investigations pointing to the CBRP. 
The EPA recognizes that, similar to refineries where the correction for 
onsite sources is also allowed, development of a monitoring program to 
implement the SSMP for onsite sources is expected to be complicated. We 
have also extended the time for the EPA to review the SSMP to 120 days 
from 90 days to account for the increased complexity of SSMP as a 
result of the inclusion of these onsite sources. Real-time monitoring 
techniques, such as open-path monitoring and sensor networks, could 
potentially be useful to characterize emissions from such proximate 
sources. Further, if information from a root cause investigation 
demonstrates that a primary or other contributing cause of an 
exceedance of the corrective action level are due to emissions from a 
CBRP, no corrective action would be required to address those causes at 
the non-listed CBRP operations beyond those that may be required under 
current regulations (40 CFR part 61, subpart L, or other applicable 
regulatory requirements). For example, if during the root cause 
investigation the primary or other contributing cause(s) is traced to a 
leak, as defined by 40 CFR part 61 subpart L, in the connections or 
seals of a control system, that leak would be required to

[[Page 55698]]

be repaired within 15 days as stipulated in 40 CFR 61.132(b)(3), but 
not as a result of the fenceline monitoring corrective action 
requirements. Primary and other contributing cause(s) of exceedances of 
the action level that are located within the facility grounds, 
excepting those sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR 
part 63, would need to be addressed. Sources that contribute to the 
fenceline benzene concentrations above the action level that are not 
subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63 may be accounted for 
through the SSMP.
    Comment: A commenter opposed to the proposed fenceline monitoring 
provisions stated that they believe the proposed benzene fenceline 
monitoring program ``targets'' co-located CBRP and not benzene in COE 
from the source category coke batteries. The commenter asserts that 
benzene in COE from the source category coke batteries is dispersed at 
90 to 200 meters above ground level due to the heat flux and vertical 
momentum rise (buoyancy), while benzene from CBRP operations generally 
remain near ground level and would more likely be measured by fenceline 
monitors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See email from D. Ailor, ACCCI/COETF, to D.L. Jones, EPA 
OAQPS, (Mar. 26, 2021, available in the docket for this rule https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: To the extent the commenter is asserting that fenceline 
monitoring is not an effective means of measuring coke oven emissions, 
the EPA disagrees. Benzene comprises a significant portion of the COE 
emitted from coke oven doors, which are fugitive emissions that are 
released at heights considerably lower than the 90 to 200 meters 
mentioned by the commenter. Likewise, internal facility monitoring 
conducted in close proximity to the coke oven batteries at four 
byproduct facilities, as part of the 2022 CAA section 114 requests, 
identified benzene as the predominant volatile organic compound (VOC) 
(which includes benzene) measured in the area of the coke oven 
batteries and at elevated average concentrations ranging from 
approximately 11 [micro]g/m\3\ to 340 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, we 
maintain the position that benzene is a good surrogate for COE and that 
fenceline monitoring is appropriate for this type of fugitive emissions 
source. We also identified benzene as the predominant VOC measured in 
close proximity to the CBRPs at equivalent or greater concentration 
than was measured in close proximity to the coke oven batteries. This 
underscores the potential impact of these non-regulated sources such as 
CBRPs on the fenceline concentration at some facilities. We have 
revised the fenceline monitoring requirements in this final rule to 
provide an opportunity for a facility to develop an SSMP to determine 
and account for the benzene emissions from onsite sources (such as 
CBRPs) not currently subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63 
in the calculation of [Delta]c.
    Comment: A commenter requested that the proposed fenceline 
monitoring requirements for HNR facilities be withdrawn and not be 
included in the final rule. The commenter contended that fenceline 
monitoring is not a new trend in facility procedures or generally in 
use at HNR facilities. The commenter stated that because ByP ovens 
operate under positive pressure, small openings or cracks in ByP ovens 
allow raw coke oven gas and HAPs to leak into the atmosphere. In 
contrast, the commenter indicated that their facility's (SunCoke's) HNR 
ovens operate under negative pressure and release the heat of 
combustion within the oven system. The commenter stated that the EPA 
previously acknowledged that operating the coke ovens under negative 
pressure virtually eliminates the risk of leakage of COE through doors 
or other potential leakage points. See the EPA document, ``National 
Emissions Standards for Coke Oven Batteries: Background Information for 
Final Amendments,'' at 21 (Mar. 31, 2005; Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0051-0232).
    The commenter continued that fugitive HAP emissions monitoring 
conducted at one of SunCoke's plants for ten years demonstrates that 
there is no impact on ambient HAP levels, that any emissions are below 
risk-based screening levels, and that the state agency agreed with this 
determination. The commenter contended in determining whether to adopt 
fenceline monitoring requirements in the current rulemaking, the EPA 
selected five coke facilities--four ByP facilities and one HNR 
facility. The commenter asserted that the proposal inappropriately 
grouped ByP and HNR facilities together as subject to fenceline 
monitoring despite significant differences in potential for fugitive 
emissions.
    One commenter contended the predicted maximum benzene 
concentrations for ByP plants range from 0.3 to 3 [micro]g/m\3\, while 
the predicted maximum benzene concentrations for HNR plants range from 
0.00005 to 0.0003 [micro]g/m\3\. Sampling at HNR plants is predicted to 
yield results at about twice the MDL for the method or lower. The 
commenter stated that only a major malfunction at a HNR plant would 
ever trigger performance of a root cause analysis. The commenter stated 
that such an increase in emissions would be noticed by plant personnel 
and addressed long before the 45 days after the end of a sampling 
period allowed for laboratory analysis and [Delta]c calculation. The 
commenter indicated that an exceedance of the proposed subpart L limits 
at HNR batteries, monitored by EPA Method 303A, would alert plant 
personnel of the need to address excess fugitive emissions in a timely 
manner.
    Another commenter contended the EPA did not remark upon the 
discrepancy of benzene concentrations between ByP and HNR facilities; 
the benzene fenceline concentrations detected at ByP facilities were 90 
to 4,000 percent higher than the levels detected at SunCoke's Haverhill 
facility in Franklin Furnace, Ohio. The absence of any necessity for 
fenceline monitoring at HNR facilities was demonstrated by the 
company's Haverhill facility, which performed almost 10 years of 
monitoring for PAH and VOCs as required by the facility's Title V 
operating permit. The permit called for sampling at three ambient 
monitoring locations near the plant (one upwind, one downwind, and one 
adjacent to the entry gate to the plant). The sampling was initiated 
when the plant was being built in late 2004, continued as the plant 
became operational in mid-2005, and continued until the Ohio EPA 
terminated the requirements for monitoring (in 2013 for PAH and in 2014 
for VOC) because the HAP monitoring data demonstrated that Haverhill 
had no impact on ambient HAP levels and emissions were below risk-based 
screening levels. (Commenter cites ``Letter from Ohio EPA to Haverhill 
Coke Company, July 14, 2014''.)
    Response: After considering these public comments and other 
relevant information, the EPA has decided to not finalize the 
requirement to require fenceline monitoring and RCACA at HNR facilities 
because the HNR coke ovens operate under negative pressure, i.e., under 
suction, which causes any leaks to consist of outside air moving into 
the ovens rather than coke oven exhaust leaking out, and, as a result, 
have negligible fugitive benzene emissions. Fenceline monitoring data 
collected through the 2022 CAA section 114 request, which can be found 
in the memorandum Fugitive Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities,\23\ 
showed an HNR

[[Page 55699]]

facility's fenceline benzene concentrations to be very low (a maximum 
individual sample concentration of 0.7 [micro]g/m\3\ and an average 
[Delta]c of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ of benzene) during the 3 months of 
fenceline monitoring, especially as compared to the ByP fenceline 
average delta [Delta]c values at four facilities that ranged from 3 
[micro]g/m\3\ to 33 [micro]g/m\3\. Additionally, the total estimated 
benzene emissions from the 5 HNR facilities are quite low, estimated at 
2.3 tpy year, which equates to an average of 0.5 tpy benzene per 
facility, on average, based on all sources at the facilities, both 
category and noncategory. This compares to ByP facilities that are 
estimated to emit 25 tpy, which equates to 3.6 tpy per facility, on 
average, also based on all sources at the facilities, both category and 
noncategory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Fugitive Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities. D.L. Jones, K. 
Boaggio, K. McGinn, and N. Shappley, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; and G.E. Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1, 
2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0880 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0051-0735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated that coke plants cover large areas with 
substantial fenceline/perimeters where some portions when located close 
to communities may be more critical, and therefore, the SSMP should 
address certain specific information. The commenter said that the EPA 
should require plants to develop a SSMP that at a minimum addresses the 
following items:
     Physical plant boundary including each fenceline ``reach'' 
on a properly-drawn scaled map, showing all coke-making and related 
operations as well as the land uses beyond the plant, adjacent to each 
reach of the fenceline.
     Types of pollutants emitted by the plant--for which the 
starting point is the collection of 2016 and 2022 (ICR) data, as 
supplemented by ongoing testing. This will include a range of VOCs and 
HAPs, PAHs, PM2.5 (as a surrogate for nonmercury metals), 
Hg, AG, etc.
     Sampling approach to initially measure all potential HAP 
emissions at each fenceline reach, and especially for those reaches 
where there is potential for community exposure if pollutants escape 
the plant boundary--at least for a period of 1 year.
     Potential reduction of the list of measured HAP that are 
potentially emitted at each fenceline reach, as needed, based on the 
first year of data collection.
     Proper frequency of sampling at the critical fenceline 
reaches. For example, if benzene or naphthalene are identified as the 
potential pollutants for adjacent community exposures, the plan should 
include continuous measurements using open path methods as opposed to 
periodic sorbent tube collection. Continuous measurements will provide 
the data on short-term variability of such impacts as opposed to a 2-
week or similar average using sorbent tubes. Refineries in California 
have successfully implemented such continuous fenceline monitoring for 
many years and the EPA can readily access how these have been 
implemented.
     Collection of continuous meteorological data in order to 
assist in data evaluation--i.e., to determine if the coke plant or some 
other source may have been the likely cause of a spike in emissions. 
This would eliminate the need to address upwind corrections since, 
depending on the meteorological data, the upwind fenceline can always 
be readily identified, making this correction defensible and simple.
    Another commenter asked how the monitoring requirements that 
support the exclusion of benzene from offsite sources can be made more 
transparent and enforceable, particularly if the SSMP is the method for 
excluding benzene from offsite sources. The commenter requested that 
the EPA revise the proposed rule text for fenceline monitoring (40 CFR 
63.314(i)(1)(ii)) accordingly to make this requirement more transparent 
and enforceable. The commenter suggested the following text as a 
replacement: ``. . . . . identify the location of the additional 
monitoring stations that must be used to determine the uniform 
background concentration and the near-field source concentration 
contribution. Modeling may not be used in lieu of monitoring to 
identify near-field sources that an SSMP applicant alleges contribute 
significantly to fenceline benzene levels at the applicant's 
facility.''
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that SSMP are 
necessary for every facility. In the proposed rule, the EPA stipulated 
that an EPA-approved SSMP is required if a facility wants to account 
for near-field offsite upwind sources in their determination of 
[Delta]c. In the final rule, this requirement is extended to accounting 
for onsite sources not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 
63. The EPA disagrees that the additional elements suggested by the 
commenter are necessary for the correct implementation of fenceline 
monitoring. The siting criteria of EPA Method 325A are specified based 
on the size and shape of facility, and the location of monitors are 
detailed in each quarterly report. It is unclear from the comment what 
is meant by fenceline ``reach.'' Land uses outside of the fenceline of 
the facility are not necessarily known by the facility, since they are 
outside the control of the facility. Benzene is being used as a 
surrogate for COE, which encompasses many different HAP and of which 
benzene is the dominant HAP as indicated by fenceline monitoring and 
the interior facility monitoring conducted through the CAA section 114 
information collection request. Continuous meteorological data is 
already required to be collected to correct the measured concentration 
to standard temperature and pressure and depending on the locality, it 
can be used in locating potential sources of any emissions. When an 
SSMP has been developed, the meteorological data can be used to account 
for up-wind or onsite benzene contributions. To achieve this, the 
meteorological data must be collected at an onsite location when an 
SSMP is implemented.
    The EPA acknowledges the feedback from the commenter about making 
the language for near field source correction of upwind contributions 
more transparent and enforceable in the final rule. The rule requires 
an owner or operator to submit a SSMP to the EPA for review and 
approval when near-field offsite upwind sources or certain onsite 
sources are being accounted for. The EPA will approve or disapprove the 
SSMP in writing within 120 days of receiving a complete SSMP submittal. 
The EPA agrees with the commenter that more specificity should be 
provided in the SSMP and has chosen to revise the final rule to include 
more prescriptive language to define the requirements of the SSMP and 
to harmonize the approach for this rule with other NESHAPs.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA needs to include a more 
comprehensive suite of pollutants for fenceline monitoring, not just 
one surrogate parameter. The commenters requested that the EPA expand 
the initial set of target analytes.
    One commenter stated the proposed rule does not include hydrogen 
sulfide fenceline monitoring. The commenter argued that the EPA has 
failed to account for its own data about how damaging these facilities 
are. The commenter stated that in 2018, the EPA produced a ``Geospatial 
Monitoring of Air Pollution Report'' (October 31, 2018) after 
conducting some fenceline monitoring over 6 days along one side of 
Middletown Works (which then had an operating coke plant). The 
commenter indicated that the EPA concluded ``These mobile and 
stationary data indicate a potential acute human health hazard.'' The 
commenter asserted that these hydrogen sulfide results show

[[Page 55700]]

the need for far more comprehensive fenceline monitoring.
    Another commenter stated that benzene is an adequate surrogate for 
some HAP, but not for inorganic compounds, and indicated that the EPA 
should require fenceline monitoring of arsenic. This commenter 
requested that the EPA add a requirement for fenceline monitoring of 
arsenic. The commenter contended that while benzene seems to be a good 
indicator for hydrocarbons such as BTEX or PAH, it is not clear that it 
is also a surrogate for inorganic pollutants. The commenter stated that 
the U.S. Geological survey examined arsenic levels in coal, finding a 
broad range of mean concentrations from 1.5 ppm to 71 ppm, depending on 
the source (https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3152/fs2005-3152.pdf). The 
commenter stated that wide differences in arsenic content were also 
found in a review article by Yudovich and Ketris (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516204001673). The 
commenter stated such differences in arsenic coal content are reflected 
in emission levels: A study of trace metal elements released during 
coal coking found differences of 600 percent in arsenic levels between 
different facilities, stating ``This is obvious owing to the different 
levels of trace elements contents in coals, depending on the coal type, 
origin, basin, and other factors.'' (Konieczynski J, Zajusz-Zubek E, 
Jablonska M. The release of trace elements in the process of coal 
coking. (Scientific World Journal. 2012;2012:294927. Doi: 10.1100/2012/
294927). While this study refers to different facilities, such 
variability is expected to apply to different times within a given 
facility as well.
    The commenter stated that the EPA identified arsenic as the leading 
cause for cancer and chronic health risks from COE but benzene has not 
been proven to be an adequate surrogate for arsenic levels. According 
to the commenter, adding a fenceline monitoring requirement for arsenic 
would be feasible and simple to implement. The commenter said that the 
EPA has a number of methods to determine metal concentration in ambient 
air that could be used for the fenceline monitoring (see https://www.epa.gov/amtic/compendium-methods-determination-inorganic-compounds-ambient-air). The commenter said there are a number of EPA-certified 
ambient air monitoring methods for metals, including arsenic, that 
could easily be installed and sampled on the same deployment and 
retrieval data collection schedule as the fenceline benzene monitors.
    Response: The EPA required some facilities in the industry to 
conduct comprehensive fenceline monitoring as part our 2022 CAA section 
114 request, which included measurement of a suite of organic HAPs. The 
results of this monitoring can be found in the memorandum Fugitive 
Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities \24\ The monitoring identified 
benzene as the most common organic HAP measured above detection level 
and the organic HAP with the highest concentration, making it an 
appropriate surrogate for fugitive emissions from coke ovens and COE. 
For fugitive leaks of COE, the intended use of fenceline monitoring, 
benzene is the chemical best suited as a surrogate for COE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Fugitive Monitoring at Coke Oven Facilities. D.L. Jones, K. 
Boaggio, K. McGinn, and N. Shappley, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; and G.E. Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1, 
2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0880 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0051-0735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arsenic requires a different monitoring approach with much higher 
costs, both for the analytical tests and for installation, and requires 
electricity at each sampling location. Benzene also is present in much 
higher concentrations in COE than arsenic; therefore, any leaking coke 
oven gas contains benzene and at much higher concentrations than 
arsenic. The EPA did not evaluate arsenic (or any other metal HAP) as 
part of the information requests related to fenceline monitoring. 
Instead, fenceline monitoring was performed at these sites to evaluate 
VOC/HAP emissions from fugitive sources. Although we recognize that 
arsenic is emitted from these facilities, the arsenic emissions are 
typically hot and emitted from ducted sources such as stacks at much 
higher elevations than the ground level of the fenceline. Therefore, we 
do not expect arsenic to be detected at the fenceline. The emissions 
from elevated, ducted sources regulated under subpart CCCCC that do not 
directly impact the fenceline measurements are measured at the source 
through periodic compliance testing required to demonstrate compliance 
with the MACT standards.
    Lastly, hydrogen sulfide is not currently a listed HAP under CAA 
section 112, and so could not be considered in this rulemaking unless 
the EPA determined that it was a surrogate for one or more HAP emitted 
as fugitives from the category. We have not made such a determination.
    Comment: A commenter said that the ``[Delta]c'' calculation is not 
sufficient to account for offsite sources of benzene when there are 
significant offsite sources or when wind direction information 
demonstrates the impact of offsite sources on monitoring locations. The 
commenter requested that the EPA redesign the [Delta]c element of the 
fenceline monitoring program. The commenter provided, as an example, 
the CAA section 114 fenceline monitoring data for the Cleveland Cliffs' 
Burns Harbor facility, which demonstrated that the highest benzene 
concentrations are associated with sources at the adjacent port 
facility and are not located near the coke facility.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that the final rule should provide a 
mechanism in addition to that already incorporated in the proposed rule 
to take into account the impact of offsite sources. As proposed, the 
final rule accomplishes this not just through the [Delta]c calculation 
methodology, but also through allowing the use of an SSMP. The rule 
states that an owner or operator may elect to submit an SSMP (for EPA 
review and approval), which could allow for the subtraction of upwind 
contributions. The final rule includes more prescriptive language to 
define the requirements of the SSMP. This is consistent with fenceline 
monitoring provisions in other NESHAPs.
    Comment: Commenters stated that they believe the fenceline monitor 
data should be made available to the public to improve transparency. 
The commenters requested that the EPA provide public access to the 
fenceline data as it is being collected and reviewed so people can be 
aware of their exposure risks. A commenter requested that the fenceline 
data be put on a website that is easily accessible to a layperson or 
community member near a facility who is not aware of and has not had 
training on that portal. A commenter contended when action levels are 
exceeded, the community must be provided immediate notification of such 
exceedances and that reporting through the EPA's electronic reporting 
and data retrieval portal is not sufficient and is confusing to use. 
Making pollution data readily available to the public is a low-cost, 
efficient way to drive pollution reduction.
    A commenter contended the EPA does not specify when fenceline 
monitoring data submitted via CEDRI will be made available to the 
public. The commenter said that public access to fenceline data will 
allow regulators to detect non-compliance earlier, and that communities 
would be simultaneously informed of dangerous, higher concentrations of 
chromium (and for lead, if the EPA includes lead in the

[[Page 55701]]

fenceline standard, as they should) with less delay. The commenter 
contended that prompt public disclosure of benzene monitoring data will 
make the failure to collect and report such information more visible, 
will give regulators and communities quicker access to information 
about dangerous spikes in benzene levels, and will give companies a 
``real time'' incentive to move quickly to clean up emission sources 
causing the problem.
    Response: As described in the proposed rule preamble and in this 
preamble, the EPA is only requiring fenceline monitoring for benzene in 
this final rule. We decided it is not necessary or appropriate to 
require fenceline monitoring for lead, arsenic or any other metal HAP 
as part of this rulemaking. See other responses in this section for 
more details on this topic.
    Regarding the public availability of data and monitoring locations, 
we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that the exact location 
of each sampling location (latitude and longitude) as well as the 
individual sampling results (both original results and corrected 
results if a monitoring location result is modified as a result of an 
SSMP) are included in the quarterly report at 40 CFR 63.311(j)(3) and 
(5). These quarterly fenceline reports will be submitted to CEDRI and 
subsequently be available to the public via the Web Factor Information 
Retrieval System (WebFIRE) (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/webfire). The fenceline monitoring data is released to 
WebFIRE 30 days after submittal to CEDRI to allow time for the EPA and 
any delegated authority to review the data prior to release. For a 
general discussion on the electronic reporting process, see the 
memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the dockets for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0908 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0748).
    To search for a fenceline monitoring report required by this rule, 
begin at the WebFIRE home page, https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire, and 
select ``Search for Reports.'' On the following page, select ``Air 
Emissions Reports'' and click ``Submit Search.'' From the ``Search 
Criteria,'' select ``Part 63--NESHAP'', and ``NESHAP--L: Coke Oven 
Batteries'' from the list and click ``Submit Search''. From this page, 
additional search criteria can be used to narrow the search to a 
specific facility, either through ``Submitting Organization and/or 
Facility Name,'' the ``Facility Location,'' or Federal Registry Service 
identification ``FRS ID'', which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/frs/frs-query. From the results screen, individual reports can be 
selected or multiple reports may be selected for a bulk download, 
either through the link at the top of the page for all reports matching 
the search criteria, or for a smaller subset of results through 
selecting multiple reports in the ``Include Report in Bulk Download'' 
and clicking ``Bulk Download Selected Reports'' on the bottom of the 
page. Depending on the overall file size, this may take some time to 
download.
b. Lowered Leak Limits for Doors, Lids, and Offtakes
    We received a few comments on the proposed lowered leak limits for 
doors, lids, and offtakes with comments both in favor of the proposed 
requirement and comments that were opposed to the requirements or 
requested significant changes.
    Comment: Commenters stated that they believe the leak rate data 
used for new limits are not a ``development in practices, processes, 
and control technologies.'' Commenters requested that the EPA not 
finalize the proposed leak limits because the proposed rule fails to 
demonstrate that there have been any new cost-effective developments in 
leak control practices, processes, or control technologies for doors, 
lids, and offtakes. Further, one commenter stated they believe that the 
EPA does not demonstrate why coke facility production capacity is a 
factually sound basis for establishing differing door leak limits. The 
commenter requested that the EPA not finalize the proposed leak limits 
for doors, lids, and offtakes based on capacity. This commenter also 
stated they believed that the EPA offers no basis for its conclusion 
that ``tall'' and ``not tall'' doors should have the same leak limits 
at facilities with less than 3 million tpy production capacity. The 
commenter requested that the EPA use door height for setting door 
limits as in current rule for lower production capacity facilities.
    Commenters contended that across the cokemaking industry, leak 
control for doors, lids, and offtakes is achieved through operational 
and maintenance work practices, not through add-on pollution controls 
or other equipment; and the current leak control methods existed and 
were considered during development of the original MACT standards [for 
subpart L, in 1993]. The EPA's use of new leak rate data for coke 
battery facilities is not based on any previously unidentified leak 
control work practices, operational procedures, process changes, add-on 
controls, or pollution prevention alternatives. Leak rate data, like 
other forms of emissions data, are simply information about a practice, 
process, or control technology. The commenters stated the EPA's 
approach improperly equates data showing overcompliance with existing 
standards as ``developments'' in leak control practices and processes. 
Nothing in the language of CAA section 112(d)(6) gives the EPA 
authority to rachet-down existing MACT floor limits based solely on 
data showing overcompliance with those existing limits. The commenter 
contended there is no explanation for why the EPA selected a 3 million 
tpy threshold versus some other level of coke production capacity. It 
is counterintuitive to presume that higher coke production capacity 
correlates to lower leak rates. The existing subpart L door leak 
standards are not based on coke production capacity; and one would 
expect that higher production facilities have a larger number of ovens 
in operation, with more cycles of charges and pushes, etc. All of these 
factors would be expected to correlate with similar or higher leak 
rates compared to smaller capacity facilities.
    The commenter also stated that since promulgation in 1993, the 
subpart L door leak limits have been based on the height of the door 
(i.e., ``tall'' doors (6 meters and taller) and ``not tall'' doors) 
because taller doors are more correlated with the occurrence of leaks. 
``Tall'' doors have a longer perimeter length compared to ``not tall'' 
doors, and longer perimeters have more area where leaks can occur. For 
example, a 6-meter ``tall'' battery door has 43 percent more perimeter 
length compared to a 4.3-meter ``not tall'' door. Therefore, ``tall'' 
doors are expected to have higher leak rates compared to ``not tall'' 
doors, and the existing door leak limits reflect these differences.
    The commenter contended the EPA seemingly acknowledges this by 
proposing different leak limits for ``tall'' and ``not tall'' doors for 
facilities with greater than 3 million tpy production capacity. 
However, the EPA offers no explanation why size of the door matters for 
leak limits at higher production facilities but size does not matter 
for lower production facilities.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the leak rate 
data used for new limits are not a development in ``practices, 
processes, and control technologies.'' The EPA believes there is a 
strong basis to infer that the data acquired by the EPA in CAA section 
114 requests from current coke facilities in 2016 and 2022, which 
showed fewer leaking doors, lids, and offtakes than

[[Page 55702]]

that allowed under the rule, reflects improved performance due to 
improved work practices for observing leaks during operations, and more 
quickly and efficiently sealing and adjusting doors, or other practices 
related to door leaks. We also received additional leak data in 2023 
and 2024 from a number of facilities that provide further evidence that 
there has been improved performance. These data are available in the 
docket for the final rule. There is no other known factor that 
correlates to reduced leak frequency or duration. As a commenter points 
out, these practices, broadly described, are not necessarily new. 
However, CAA section 112(d)(6) does not require that practices be 
either recently invented or recently identified. The CAA section 
112(d)(6) gives the EPA authority to revise standards based upon 
``developments'' in practices, which clearly can include improvements 
in previously existing practices and new information about the 
performance of those improvements. Here there is no apparent reason for 
lower leak rate values other than positive developments in work 
practices concerning detection and minimization of leaks. Industry 
commenters have not suggested any alternative explanation. It is 
therefore reasonable to infer that lower leak rate values reflect 
developments in work practices to control leaks. See the response to 
the next comment in regard to the data supporting this statement.
    The lower leak rate standard for larger capacity facilities 
reflects the lower leak rates shown in the recent EPA Method 303 data 
for those operations. The commenter correctly notes that oven leak 
rates are not functionally related to the number of ovens at a 
facility; rather, leak rates depend on whether each oven is well-sealed 
or not. As noted above, the primary determinant of leak rates is the 
effectiveness of work practices to detect and minimize leaks. There is 
not an apparent reason for why larger capacity facilities are attaining 
lower leak rates other than that they are more effectively employing 
work practices to control leaks. Industry commenters have not suggested 
an alternative explanation. In this situation, the distinction based on 
facility size (as allowed by CAA section 112(d)(1)) reflects more 
effective work practices at the larger facilities. There may be, for 
instance, cost-related reasons why smaller capacity facilities have not 
employed the same work practices as larger facilities. It is reasonable 
to infer that a larger capacity facility may be able to invest more 
resources in leak control practices. Lacking a firm basis for 
concluding that smaller facilities can reasonably achieve the same 
performance as larger facilities, the EPA is finalizing the capacity-
based distinction in leak rate limits supported by current measurement 
data.
    That leak rates are primarily determined by work practices, and 
that work practices are not restricted to facility capacity, if 
anything, suggests that the lower leak rates achieved at larger 
capacity facilities should be achievable at smaller facilities as well. 
Notwithstanding such a possible inference, the EPA is setting leak rate 
limits at levels demonstrated to be achievable by the available data.
    The EPA selected a 3 million tpy production of coke production 
capacity because the production of the facility in this category 
(nearly 5 million tpy capacity) is more than twice the capacity of the 
next highest facility (<2 million tons coke capacity). This is a clear 
break point in size between larger and smaller capacity facilities, and 
that break point aligns with the data showing lower leak rates at the 
larger facility.
    Regarding the commenter's request to use door height for setting 
door limits for lower production capacity facilities, the EPA agrees 
with the commenter and is finalizing allowable door limits for both 
``tall'' and ``not tall'' batteries, as described in section IV.B.4.b. 
of this preamble and in the Technology Review Memorandum-Final 
Rule,\25\ and which reflect the current rule. Also, see the EPA's 
response to other comments on the revised leak limits in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, 
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E. 
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated that they believed the EPA has not 
provided adequate information regarding what data were used and how the 
EPA calculated the proposed leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes. 
The commenter requested that the EPA provide rationale for new leak 
limits for doors, lids, and offtakes. The commenter contended the 
Technology Review Memorandum identifies the proposed limits but 
provides little information on how the EPA derived the limits. Beyond a 
sentence stating that ``[t]he 2022 facility-average data showed a high 
of 46 percent of the standard for tall doors (standard 4.0 percent); a 
high of 52 percent of the standard for all other doors, i.e., not tall 
(standard 3.3 percent); and a high of only 36 percent of the standard 
for foundry (standard 4.0 percent) . . .'' it is not apparent how the 
EPA derived any of the proposed leak limits, including the averaging 
time the EPA used. It is not clear if the EPA used or disregarded the 
2022 ICR data in developing the proposed limits, which makes it 
difficult to verify the EPA's claim regarding the facility-average 
data.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has revised the 
proposed leak limits. The proposed limits were based on data described 
in the memorandum prepared for the proposal Technology Review for the 
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack and Coke Oven 
Batteries Source Categories,\26\ hereafter referred to as the 
``Proposal Technology Review Memorandum,'' and specifically, Section 
3.2 Current Leak Control at ByP Coke Oven Facilities and ``Table 5. 
Summary of ByP Facility Method 303 Performance and COE Emissions Data 
from 2022 Coke Section 114 Request.'' The EPA developed an annual 
average for 2022 each facility and each battery from the submitted 
monthly averages for 2022. However, we used a different approach for 
the final rule limits. The revised limits are based on consideration of 
public comments and additional facility data for rolling 30-day average 
leak rates received after the publication of the proposed rule, as 
described in section IV.B.4.b. of this preamble (e.g., see table 4 in 
section IV.B.4.b.) and in the Technology Review Memorandum-Final 
Rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, 
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories. D.L. 
Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E. Raymond, RTI 
International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.
    \27\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, 
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E. 
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors and Concurrent Oven or 
Common Tunnel Pressure Monitoring
    We received 2 comments on requiring both zero leaks from HNR oven 
doors and concurrent oven and common tunnel pressure monitoring. Both 
commenters were not in favor of the proposed amendments to require 
pressure monitoring in ovens. No comments in support were received.

[[Page 55703]]

    Comment: A commenter stated that costly and onerous HNR oven 
pressure monitoring is unnecessary, burdensome, and unsafe. The 
commenter explained that if pressure monitors are located in the ovens, 
they must be manually cleaned out by maintenance personnel 2 to 3 times 
per week. The commenter requested that the EPA not require HNR oven 
pressure monitoring (in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(1)(i)) in addition to VE 
monitoring. The commenter contended the EPA lacks authority to require 
costly and onerous oven pressure monitoring for HNR oven door leaks. 
The commenter noted that the EPA had stated in the proposal that it 
``did not identify any developments in practices, processes or control 
technologies,'' (88 FR 55883) and acknowledged that ``[VE] monitoring 
has been used as an effective surrogate for monitoring door leaks in 
the past.'' The commenter asserted the EPA incorrectly assumes that 
increased pressure monitoring is necessary to establish negative oven 
pressure. The EPA's proposed requirement ``to measure pressure in the 
ovens during the main points in the entire oven cycle to include, at 
minimum, during pushing, coking, and charging,'' (88 FR 55884), is 
inconsistent with its findings that for pushing and charging, ``no 
technology has been identified that demonstrates reduced emissions . . 
. beyond the current control technology in use.''
    The commenter continued that installing and maintaining pressure 
monitors in each oven would be exorbitantly expensive, challenging, and 
unreliable. The commenter estimated costs of $3 to 4 million for every 
100 ovens subject to this requirement. In addition, pressure monitors 
located in the ovens must be manually cleaned out by maintenance 
personnel 2 to 3 times per week, exposing personnel to excessive heat, 
which is an unnecessary safety risk. The commenter stated that 
SunCoke's heat recovery facilities already monitor negative pressure in 
the common tunnel electronically on a continuous basis and have one 
pressure transmitter for every seven (7) ovens in the battery on 
average. Monitoring for negative pressure in the common tunnel, in 
conjunction with monitoring for coke oven leaks throughout all stages 
of coking as previously described, accurately captures any time that an 
oven is experiencing positive pressure and allows personnel to take 
action in a timely and safe manner when necessary. Therefore, the 
commenter states that the EPA should not include these proposed changes 
to pressure monitoring in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(i) in the final rule.
    Another commenter also stated that the EPA proposed rule includes 
unnecessary and redundant instrumentation to monitor HNR oven 
operational pressure continuously.
    In regard to the proposed requirement to require zero leaks from 
HNR oven doors, as determined by EPA Method 303A, a commenter notes 
that SunCoke's work practices are already consistent with 40 CFR 
63.303(c)(2) in that SunCoke monitors the ovens for the entirety of the 
coking cycle and responds to any observed door leaks to make 
adjustments to the ovens by reviewing electronic data and physically 
walking the coke oven batteries. Any door leaks due to positive 
pressure are corrected by adjusting oven uptakes, dampers, and/or sole 
flues, and are then recorded, and reported as required under 40 CFR 
63.303(c)(2).
    Response: In response to what the EPA believes to be credible 
concerns regarding safety hazards and costs, the EPA is not finalizing 
a requirement for both HNR oven and common tunnel pressure monitoring 
in 40 CFR 63.303(a)(1)(i). The costs of requiring both oven pressure 
monitoring and common tunnel monitoring would not be justifiable given 
the already low leak emissions from HNR ovens that will be complying 
with the 0 percent leaking oven doors requirement in the final rule, 
and the common tunnel pressure monitoring already in place at HNR 
facilities.
    Because of the commenter's statements that due to another part of 
the COB rule, 40 CFR 63.303(c)(2), HNR facilities are already required 
to respond to oven leaks, and that all HNR facilities already ``monitor 
the ovens for the entirety of the coking cycle and respond to any 
observed door leaks to make adjustments to the ovens by reviewing 
electronic data and physically walking the coke oven batteries,'' we 
are promulgating the requirement for zero leaks from oven doors, with 
daily monitoring using EPA Method 303A, so that the current SunCoke 
practice to observe oven doors to maintain zero leaks is codified in 
the rule.
    Therefore, in the final rule, a HNR facility is required to 
demonstrate and maintain zero leaks from HNR oven doors, and measure 
pressure in either the ovens or common tunnels to demonstrate negative 
pressure, minimally during charging, coking, and pushing.
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Emissions From Leaking Doors
    We received one comment on the revised emissions equation for 
emissions from leaking doors which suggested corrections to the 
equation.
    Comment: A commenter stated they believe the EPA's proposed change 
to the equation for estimating leaks would underestimate 
PLDbench and thus COE, and proposed an alternative equation. 
To test the EPA's proposed change, the commenter plotted 
PLDbench versus PLDyard (shown in this section as 
Commenter's Figure 1). The commenter asserted that for a valid equation 
the points should fall along a line with a slope of 0.94 and intercept 
of 0, and that because data for these four batteries in Commenter's 
Figure 1 are above this line, the EPA's proposed equation 
underestimates PLDbench and thus COE.
    The commenter continued that another issue is that the EPA's 
proposed change assumes that PLDbench is zero when 
PLDyard is zero. However, even when there are no leaks 
visible from the yard, there will still likely be leaks visible only 
from the bench. It appears a more appropriate method for estimating 
PLDbench from PLDyard is to fit a line to the 
data with a non- zero intercept. Doing so yields the following equation 
for estimating PLDbench from PLDyard:
PLDbench = 0.30 * PLDyard + 1.11 (Equation 1)

[[Page 55704]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.000

    The commenter asserted the EPA should estimate PLDbench 
using Equation 1 (PLDbench only = 0.30 * PLDyard 
+ 1.11), resulting in a more accurate estimate of PLDbench 
only and presumably of COE.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that there could be PLD from 
the bench, i.e., PLD bench-only emissions, when PLD from the yard is 
zero. However, the term PLDbench in the equation in the 
proposal materials represented emissions from the PLD from bench-only, 
see pg. 2 of the Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from 
Oven Doors prepared for the proposal,\28\ as well as the memorandum 
prepared for the final rule titled Revised Equation to Estimate Coke 
Oven Emissions from Oven Doors-Final Rule,\29\ where it was stated that 
the PLDbench term was the ``percent of doors with leaks only 
visible from the bench, assumed [previously] to be 6%''. The PLD-bench 
total is equal to ``PLD-bench only'' plus PLD visible from both the 
bench and the yard (PLD-yard). We have added subscripts for all the 
terms in the equation in the memorandum prepared for the final rule 
(and in this section) so that it is clear what emissions are being 
referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven 
Doors. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 2021. Docket 
ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
    \29\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven 
Doors-Final Rule. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2022 CAA section 114 test data submitted included only PLD from 
the bench, i.e., bench total, and PLD from the yard. PLD-Bench-only is 
obtained from the PLD-Bench Total leak data, obtained via the 2022 CAA 
section 114 request, minus the PLD yard. To evaluate the door leak 
equation, the comparison should be between the ratio of PLD bench-only 
to the PLD yard.
    The results of the analysis of CAA section 114 data submitted by 
Cleveland Cliffs' Burns Harbor and U.S. Steel's Clairton facilities are 
shown in table 5 of this section. Similar to the commenter, we combined 
the 1981 leak data with the 2022 leak data so as to have a more robust 
data set. We first determined the average ratio of PLD-bench-only to 
PLD-yard for both batteries from each facility, and from both coal and 
coke sides in the 1981 and 2022 data. These ratios were averaged 
together to produce a revised PLD bench-only/PLD yard ratio of 1.5 to 
use in the leak emissions equation. See table 6 of this section.

  Table 5--Summary of Door Leak Study at Cleveland Cliffs Burns Harbor and U.S. Steel's Clairton Facilities Submitted for 2022 CAA Section 114 Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Coke side                              Coal side
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Average PLD                            Average PLD
                  Facility                             Battery ID          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Bench-only                             Bench-only
                                                                             Bench (%)       (%)        Yard (%)    Bench (%)       (%)        Yard (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC Burns Harbor............................  2............................          3.8          2.7          1.1         0.61         0.61          0.0
                                             1............................          4.4          2.6          1.8          1.7         0.61          1.1
                                             Facility Avg.................          4.1          2.7          1.4          1.1         0.61         0.53
U.S. Steel Clairton........................  20...........................          1.1         0.38         0.72          1.9          1.3         0.57
                                             19...........................          1.6         1.03         0.57          1.7          1.4         0.29
                                             Facility Avg.................          1.4         0.71         0.60          1.8          1.4         0.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55705]]


          Table 6--Ratios of PLD-Yard to PLD-Bench-Only in 1981 and 2022 Data Sets and Overall Averages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Ratio PLD bench-only/PLD yard
               Facility                        Battery ID        -----------------------------------------------
                                                                     Coke side       Coal side        Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC-Burns Harbor.......................  2.......................             2.6          NA \a\  ..............
                                        1.......................             1.4            0.57
                                        Facility Avg............             2.0            0.57             1.3
U.S. Steel Clairton...................  20......................            0.53             2.3  ..............
                                        19......................             1.8             4.9  ..............
                                        Facility Avg............             1.2             3.6             2.4
1981 Data \b\.........................  ........................  ..............  ..............            0.94
    Overall Average...................  ........................  ..............  ..............             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Coal-side ratio can't be calculated because coal-side yard PLD is zero.
\b\ Ratio was determined from bench-only value of 6.0 and PLD yard of 6.4 (6.0/6.4 = 0.94).

    In order to determine the value for PLD-bench only when PLD yard is 
equal to zero, we plotted PLD yard by PLD bench-only, similar to the 
commenter's approach but using PLD bench-only instead of PLD bench-
total. The intercept of the regression line with the y-axis is the 
value for PLD-bench-only when PLD yard is 0, at 0.7 percent (or a 
factor of 0.007). The correlation coefficient (r\2\) of the regression 
line is 0.84, which is considered a good fit.\30\ See Figure 2 in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Davide, C., M.J. Warrens, and G. Jurman. The coefficient of 
determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, 
MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. PeerJ Comput Sci. 
2021; 7: e623. Published online 2021 Jul 5. doi: 10.7717/peerj-
cs.623. July 5, 2021. https://peerj.com/articles/cs-623/.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.001

    The revised door leak equation using the revised ratio of PLD-
bench-only to PLD yard of 1.5 and adding a third term in the equation 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to represent the case where PLD-yard is equal to zero is shown below:

COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 
lb/hr)
+
ND x ((PLDyard x 
1.5PLDbench-only/PLDyard)/100) x (0.023 lb/hr)
+
ND x 0.007 x (0.023 lb/hr)

    See the Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven 
Doors--Final Rule \31\ for documentation of the revised leak limit 
equation for the final rule that reflects comments received and 
additional analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Revised Equation to Estimate Coke Oven Emissions from Oven 
Doors-Final Rule. D.L. Jones and K. McGinn. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Opacity Testing of HNR B/W Stacks
    We received one comment on the proposed opacity limit for HNR B/W 
stacks that objected to the numerical value, the frequency of the 
proposed limit, and the coke NESHAP (COB) in which the limit was 
proposed. The comment is summarized below along with the EPA response.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA's redline version of its 
proposed amendments to subpart L includes a proposed change to 40 CFR 
63.303(d)(3) to impose a 10 perent opacity limit on HNR B/W stacks. The 
commenter contends they are not aware of any coke plant that could meet 
the proposed limit. According to the commenter, the permits and state

[[Page 55706]]

regulatory authorities already limit VE from the HNR B/W stacks to 20 
percent opacity. As demonstrated by the performance testing conducted 
and the deviation reports submitted in response to the EPA's CAA 
section 114 request, the commenter stated that SunCoke is in 
substantial compliance with the existing opacity limits for the HNR B/W 
stacks. When this equipment is in operation, SunCoke personnel monitor 
opacity from the HNR B/W stacks and adjust oven dampers to minimize or 
eliminate VE if present to ensure compliance with the existing opacity 
limits. At SunCoke's Jewell facility, which is the only facility where 
the waste heat stacks operate on a continuous basis, an equivalent 
weekly monitoring requirement is already established by its CAA Title V 
requirement. The commenter stated more frequent monitoring is not 
necessary, citing Jewell's vast history of complying with its opacity 
limit.
    The commenter also stated that it would not be appropriate to 
establish a daily [opacity] observation requirement at heat recovery 
facilities because the bypass stacks do not operate on a continuous 
basis. Because venting at SunCoke's heat recovery facilities can be 
brief and intermittent, imposing such a requirement any time the bypass 
vent stacks are in operation would result in greater environmental harm 
because it would extend the duration of venting to allow SunCoke 
sufficient time to dispatch certified personnel to the appropriate 
location in the plant to conduct readings per EPA Method 9. The 
commenter, therefore, urged the EPA to not include its proposed changes 
to 40 CFR 63.303(d)(3) in the final rule, and stated that including 
these changes would be unnecessary, arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, 
SunCoke notes that the EPA is attempting to regulate the same source--
bypass/HNR B/W stacks--as part of two different source categories, 
subparts L and CCCCC. The commenter also stated that the EPA lacks 
authority to impose the proposed new opacity limit and the related 
requirements, arguing that the EPA had not shown these requirements are 
``necessary,'' taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) 
(requiring the EPA to ``review, and revise as necessary (taking into 
account developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section''); 88 
FR 55883 (the EPA ``did not identify any developments in practices, 
processes or control technologies'') (emphasis added).
    Response: We agree with the commenter that daily testing from HNR 
bypass to achieve 10 percent opacity is not demonstrated and that 20 
percent opacity is a limit that has been established as a feasible 
limit for HNR B/W stacks via an existing facility's permit. We also 
agree that the intermittent nature of the HNR B/W events could prevent 
HNR facilities from testing under EPA Method 9 and also could 
unnecessarily extend the bypass event in order to perform the testing.
    Based on the comments received, we are finalizing a 20 percent 
opacity limit for HNR B/W stack, pursuant to a CAA section 112(d)(6) 
technology review of the PQBS NESHAP, to be measured weekly when a 
bypass event occurs for more than one continuous hour to allow 
sufficient time to ascertain whether the bypass event will last long 
enough to test opacity with EPA Method 9 and, if so, to dispatch 
personnel qualified to perform EPA Method 9 to the B/W stack. When 
there is at least one bypass event during any week that last for at 
least one hour, the weekly opacity testing requirement applies. This 
condition is important for the four HNR facilities that do not have 
continuous bypass. The one HNR facility with continuous bypass will be 
able to test anytime during each week. We agree with the commenter that 
the revised opacity requirements for HNR B/W stacks should be included 
as part of the technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC.
6. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
a. Coke Oven Leak Limits
    The leak limits being finalized for doors, lids, and offtakes 
reflect changes from the proposed rule based on information obtained 
from a number of ByP facilities on the variability of leaks on daily 
rolling 30-day average basis. Using the available data, we compared the 
maximum 30-day rolling averages with the maximum annual averages and 
developed adjustment factors to account for variability. Then, we 
multiplied the adjustment factors by the maximum annual average for 
each leak type. We are promulgating these revised leak limits (shown in 
table 4 of this preamble). Available data demonstrate that these limits 
reflect current performance of facilities and are, therefore, 
achievable. The current performance reflects improvements in work 
practices, specifically practices designed to enhance prevention, 
detection, and remediation of leaks and, therefore, constitute a 
``development'' for purposes of CAA section 112(d)(6).
b. Fenceline Monitoring Requirements
    We revised the modeling procedures to incorporate irregular-shaped 
facility properties after considering public comments. This resulted in 
a change in the action level from 3 [micro]g/m\3\ to 7 [micro]g/m\3\. 
This action level reflects emissions from the whole site and takes into 
account all emissions from the coke oven facilities. In addition, in 
the final rule we are requiring fenceline monitoring and corrective 
action only at ByP coke oven facilities and not at HNR facilities 
because the HNR facilities operate under negative pressure, already 
have very low fugitive benzene emissions, and the NESHAP requires 
monitoring to ensure no fugitive emissions at HNR facilities. 
Furthermore, in this final rule, the EPA is providing an opportunity 
for facilities to develop SSMPs to account for the contribution to the 
fenceline monitoring by benzene emissions from co-located sources that 
are not currently subject to regulation under CAA section 112 (such as 
the non-listed CBRPs).
c. Zero Allowable Leaks From HNR Oven Doors and Negative Pressure 
Monitoring in Ovens or Tunnels
    We are not requiring pressure monitoring in both ovens and common 
tunnels in the final rule for COB because we did not receive any 
comments in support of requiring both and we received information on 
the cost and other problems with installing and maintaining oven 
monitors. We received two comments describing the redundance of 
requiring both as well as description of the safety problems with using 
pressure monitors within ovens. In the final rule, we are requiring 
both zero leaks from HNR oven doors and pressure monitoring in either 
ovens or common tunnels. From the comments received, we learned that 
HNR facilities already monitor ovens to ensure there are no leaks, so 
the final rule codifies this practice. The compliance date for zero 
leaking oven doors and pressure monitoring at HNR facilities is July 7, 
2025.
d. Revised Emissions Equation for Doors
    We revised the proposed equation to estimate COE emissions from 
leaking doors based on VE test data received from two facilities that 
was obtained by the EPA in 2022 and combined these data with VE test 
results from 1981, which was when the equation first was developed. In 
addition, we received a comment that the equation did not account for 
the case where no VE from

[[Page 55707]]

oven doors is observed from the yard but VE from ovens is observed from 
the bench. A linear regression analysis of the combined 1981 and 2022 
data provided a revised equation that reflects these data and addresses 
the comments.
e. Opacity Limits for HNR B/W Stacks
    We are finalizing a 20 percent opacity limit for HNR B/W stacks 
under the PQBS NESHAP because this limit is currently required and 
achieved at the one HNR facility with continuous bypass and because the 
opacity limit in the rule will ensure continued compliance for this 
source as well as the other HNR B/W sources with intermittent bypass. 
We are requiring weekly testing for HNR waste heat stacks, which 
operate continuously. For HNR bypass stacks, which operate 
intermittently, testing is required weekly if and when bypass occurs 
longer than one hour so as to enable testing using the procedures in 
EPA Method 9 and so as to not prolong emitting bypass exhaust solely 
for the purpose of testing. The compliance date for opacity limit on 
HNR B/W stacks is July 7, 2025.

C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks 
source category?
a. MACT Limits
    Consistent with the LEAN decision,\32\ we proposed 17 \33\ new MACT 
floor limits for unregulated HAP and processes based on available test 
data, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \33\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Pushing: AG, HCN, Hg, PAHs;
     ByP battery combustion: AG, HCN, Hg, nonmercury HAP 
metals;
     HNR HRSG main stack: AG, Hg, nonmercury HAP metals, PAHs; 
and
     HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks: AG, Hg, formaldehyde, 
nonmercury HAP metals, and PAHs.
    Based on the data we had at proposal, we expected all sources could 
meet the 17 \34\ new MACT floor limits without additional controls. 
Compliance testing was the only costs that EPA anticipated would be 
associated with the proposed rule for testing. More details are 
provided in the August 16, 2023, proposed rule preamble (88 FR 55858).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. BTF Standards at HNR Facilities Without HRSG
    We proposed BTF limits for Hg and non-Hg particulate matter (PM) 
HAP metals at HNR facilities without HRSG based the addition of 
baghouses and activated carbon injection (ACI). More details are 
provided in the August 16, 2023, proposed rule preamble.
2. How did the amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 
change for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery 
Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
a. MACT Limits
    We are finalizing 17 new MACT floor-based standards \35\ for 
unregulated HAP and processes that were previously identified in the 
August 2023 proposed rule. Some of the proposed 17 emission limits 
changed in the final rule to reflect additional data submitted by coke 
oven facilities since the limits were developed for the August 2023 
proposal, and also from comments received on standardizing limits in 
gr/dscf to a specific oxygen concentration. The MACT limits, as 
revised, include: (1) HNR main stack limits for AG, Hg, PAH, and PM (as 
a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP) based on additional data, and to 
standardize all limits to 10 percent oxygen; (2) HNR Bypass stack 
limits based on additional data for Hg and PM, and to standardize all 
limits to 10 percent oxygen; (3) revised limits for battery stacks 
based on additional data for AG, HCN, and Hg, and to standardize the 
proposed PM limits to 10 percent oxygen; and (4) revised limits for AG, 
HCN, and PAH for pushing based on additional data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the 17 MACT floor limits described above, during the 
EPA's review of this Coke Ovens RTR final rule, we realized that we did 
not propose standards for eight additional HAP and process 
combinations. As a result, the EPA also is finalizing a MACT work 
practice standard based on ``good combustion practices'' in battery 
waste heat flues to address the organic HAP emissions of D/F, PAH, and 
VOHAP from battery stacks. In addition, we are finalizing surrogate 
standards for five additional HAP and process combinations for which 
many, but not all, test runs were below the detection limits (BDL), as 
follows: D/F, formaldehyde, and VOHAP from pushing; formaldehyde from 
HNR main stacks; and VOHAP from HNR B/W stacks.
    The additional eight unregulated HAP and process described in this 
section were documented in the memorandum Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology Standard Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor 
Cost Impacts for Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart 
CCCCC prepared for the proposal, hereafter called the ``Proposal MACT/
BTF Memorandum,'' \36\ which was located in the docket for the proposed 
rule (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0859) and has been 
available since publication of the proposal in August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCC--Proposed 
Rule. D. L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the test data for the 17 HAP \37\ for which MACT floor 
emissions limits were proposed included some measurements that were 
BDL, the majority of test runs were above the detection limits. With 
regard to the eight additional HAP and process combinations identified 
for this final rule, many of the test runs were BDL and seven of the 
eight had a majority of test runs BDL. For all eight HAP and process 
combinations, emissions are low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this issue, we are promulgating work practice standards 
pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for battery stacks based on ensuring 
good combustion in battery waste heat flues for D/F, PAH, and VOHAP 
emissions from battery stacks since it is not economically and 
technically feasible to

[[Page 55708]]

reliably measure emissions of these HAP, as evidenced by the large 
percent of test runs that are BDL. For the other five HAP and process 
combinations, we are finalizing a determination that three of the 17 
MACT floor emission limits serve as surrogates for these five HAP and 
process combinations, and that the five HAP are subject to these 
surrogate limits. This is shown in table 7. The limits themselves are 
not changing otherwise as a result of this surrogacy determination. The 
EPA has used all data available to set valid and appropriate standards 
and address these eight unregulated HAP. Recognizing that additional 
data would further support appropriate regulation of these HAP, the 
Agency intends to obtain additional data, and in a separate, future 
action use that data to ensure the appropriateness of these standards.
    The three additional emission standards and one work practice 
standard apply as follows: (1) the final limits for PAH for pushing 
serve as a surrogate for all other organic HAP for pushing, including 
D/F, VOHAP, and formaldehyde (all had greater than 55 percent of test 
runs BDL); (2) the final limits for PAH from HNR HRSG main stacks serve 
as a surrogate for all organic HAP from this source, including 
formaldehyde, for which greater than 25 percent of test runs were BDL 
and from very limited data (only one test report from one facility); 
(3) the final limits for formaldehyde from HNR HRSG B/W stacks serve as 
a surrogate for VOHAP from B/W stacks (for which greater than 55 
percent of test runs were BDL); and (4) a work practice standard of 
``good combustion practices'' during ByP waste heat combustion in 
battery flues to minimize organic HAP emissions from battery stacks, 
including PAH, D/F and VOHAP.
    The good combustion work practice standards require owners or 
operators to identify and implement a set of site-specific good 
combustion work practices for each battery. These good combustion work 
practices should correspond to the facility's standard operating 
procedures for maintaining the proper and efficient combustion within 
battery waste heat flues. Good combustion work practices include, but 
are not limited to, the following:
     Proper operating conditions for each battery (e.g., 
minimum combustion temperature, burner alignment, or proper fuel-air 
distribution/mixing).
     Routine inspection and preventative maintenance and 
corresponding schedules of each battery.
     Performance analyses of each battery.
     Maintaining applicable operator logs.
     Maintaining applicable records to document compliance with 
each element.
    The work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions from 
battery stacks are being finalized under CAA section 112(h) because the 
EPA has determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 
emissions standard. Sections 112(h)(1) and (h)(2)(B) of the CAA provide 
the EPA with the discretion to adopt a work practice standard rather 
than a numeric standard when ``the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations.'' The ``application of 
measurement methodologies'' (described in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)) 
means not only conducting a measurement, but also that a measurement 
has some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting (i.e., that 
the measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not the case here, 
where a clear majority of values are BDL using best available 
technology.
    With regard to surrogacy limits, we conclude that PAHs are a good 
surrogate for the other organic HAP (including D/F, VOHAP and 
formaldehyde) for the pushing operation because the relative amount of 
emissions of the other organic HAP due to the high temperature thermal 
distillation process in coke ovens which are expected to be emitted at 
a similar degree as PAHs. Regarding the HNR HRSG main stacks, PAHs are 
a good surrogate for formaldehyde and other organic HAP because the 
afterburners that facilities use to combust any remaining organic HAP 
in the oven exhaust are expected to control these organic HAP to 
similar levels as PAH. Likewise, formaldehyde is a good surrogate for 
VOHAP for HNR B/W stacks for the same reason (i.e., the afterburners 
are expected to control VOHAP to a similar degree as formaldehyde).
    We also conclude that the additional work practice standard and 
surrogacy determinations will not result in any new control costs or 
compliance testing costs.
    The 17 MACT floor emissions limits,\38\ one MACT work practice 
standard based on good combustion practices, and five HAP and process 
combinations for which surrogacy determinations have been made are 
shown in table 7 of this section. For additional discussion and 
documentation of these final MACT standards, see the memorandum Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology Standard Calculations, Cost Impacts, and 
Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart CCCCC--Final Rule,\39\ hereafter referred to as the 
``Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum,'' which is available in the docket 
for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Note, we erroneously reported that there were 15 new MACT 
floor limits in the August 2023 proposal preamble. This was a 
typographic error. The proposed rule included 17 new MACT floor 
limits and 2 BTF limits; the BTF limits are not included in the 
final rule. However, we are adding a work practice standard in this 
final rule so the count of standards is now 18.
    \39\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC--Final 
Rule. D. L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.

                           Table 7--MACT Standards for PQBS Sources in This Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Type of affected source (new or existing)
         Source or process                    Pollutant          -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         Existing                   New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pushing............................  AG.........................  0.013 lb/ton coke       5.3E-04 lb/ton coke
                                                                   [UPL].                  [3xRDL].
                                     HCN........................  0.0015 lb/ton coke      3.8E-05 lb/ton coke
                                                                   [UPL].                  [UPL].
                                     Hg.........................  8.9E-07 lb/ton coke     5.1E-07 lb/ton coke
                                                                   [UPL].                  [3xRDL].
                                     PAH \a\....................  4.0E-04 lb/ton coke     1.4E-05 lb/ton coke
                                                                   [UPL].                  [UPL].
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 55709]]

 
                                     D/F, formaldehyde, VOHAP...  Meet applicable PAH limits and requirements of
                                                                                 40 CFR 63.7290(e).
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Battery Stack......................  AG.........................  0.160 lb/ton coke       0.013 lb/ton coke
                                                                   [UPL].                  [UPL].
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     D/F, PAH, VOHAP............   ``Good combustion'' work practices in battery
                                                                        waste heat combustion flues and meet
                                                                       requirements of 40 CFR 63.7300(c)(4).
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     HCN........................  0.032 lb/ton coke       7.4E-04 lb/ton coke
                                                                   [UPL].                  [UPL].
                                     Hg.........................  4.5E-05 lb/ton coke     7.1E-06 lb/ton coke
                                                                   [UPL].                  [UPL].
                                     PM.........................  0.13 PM gr/dscf @10%    0.013 gr/dscf @10% O2
                                                                   O2 [UPL].               [UPL].
HNR HRSG Main Stack................  AG.........................  0.049 gr/dscf @10% O2   0.0034 gr/dscf @10% O2
                                                                   [UPL].                  [UPL].
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     Formaldehyde...............   Meet applicable PAH limit and requirements of
                                                                                 40 CFR 63.7297(d).
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     Hg.........................  3.0E-06 gr/dscf @10%    1.5E-06 gr/dscf @10%
                                                                   O2 [UPL].               O2 [UPL].
                                     PAH \b\....................  4.8E-07 gr/dscf @10%    4.7E-07 gr/dscf @10%
                                                                   O2 [UPL].               O2 [UPL].
                                     PM.........................  0.0049 gr/dscf @10% O2  8.8E-04 gr/dscf @10%
                                                                   [UPL].                  O2 [UPL].
HNR B/W Stack......................  AG.........................  0.12 gr/dscf @10% O2    0.093 gr/dscf [UPL].
                                                                   [UPL].
                                     Formaldehyde \c\...........  0.0012 gr/dscf @10% O2  1.8E-05 gr/dscf @10%
                                                                   [UPL].                  O2 [UPL].
                                     Hg.........................  1.2E-05 gr/dscf @10%    8.6E-06 gr/dscf @10%
                                                                   O2 [UPL].               O2 [UPL].
                                     PAH........................  2.7E-06 gr/dscf @10%    2.7E-06 gr/dscf @10%
                                                                   O2 [UPL].               O2 [UPL].
                                     PM.........................  0.032 gr/dscf @10% O2   0.022 gr/dscf @10% O2
                                                                   [UPL].                  [UPL].
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     VOHAP......................      Meet applicable formaldehyde limits and
                                                                         requirements of 40 CFR 63.7298(e).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Serves as a surrogate for other organic HAP including D/F, formaldehyde and VOHAP.
\b\ Serves as a surrogate for other organic HAP including formaldehyde.
\c\ Serves as a surrogate for VOHAP.
Note: gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic feet. RDL = representative detection level. UPL = upper prediction
  limit.

    Based on consideration of public comments and our revised cost 
estimates, the EPA is not promulgating the BTF standards for HNR 
facilities without HRSG. Instead, these units will need to comply with 
the same MACT floor standards that the EPA is promulgating for HNR HRSG 
bypass stacks for facilities with HRSG.

3. What key comments did we receive on the amendments pursuant to CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?

    We received many comments on the proposed MACT and BTF standards 
with comments in favor of the proposed limits, comments requesting more 
stringent limits, and comments that were opposed to the proposed 
requirements. The key comments on the proposed amendments developed 
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) are summarized in this 
section along with the EPA's responses to the comments. Other comments 
received on these proposed amendments are summarized along with the 
EPA's responses in the Response to Comment \40\ document, which is 
located in the dockets for these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated that they believe the EPA is not 
required by CAA section 112(d) or by the LEAN \41\ court decision to 
set new ``gap filling'' MACT floors when the cost of control is extreme 
and the benefit of further emission reduction is minimal due to very 
low risk to public health. The commenter requested the EPA consider the 
cost of meeting the proposed MACT standards as well as the non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements of 
doing so. The commenter asserted the following reasons for why they 
believe the EPA is not required to set new ``gap filling'' MACT floors 
for existing sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Further reductions of these pollutants are not necessary 
due to very low risk of the source category;
     Controlling these pollutants has not been demonstrated for 
sources like ByP battery stacks;
     The cost of adding controls would be exorbitant; and
     The new standards would not be cost effective due to the 
extreme cost of controls and the minimal reductions in these pollutants 
that would be achieved.
    The commenter urged the EPA to reconsider its long-held 
interpretation that costs are not considered in setting the MACT floor. 
The commenter argued that interpretation is not reasonable in the 
context of a setting LEAN \42\ ``gap-filling'' MACT standards where the 
cost of control is extreme and the benefit of further emission 
reduction is minimal due to very low risk to public health. The 
commenter believes all relevant factors should be considered in that 
context, including ``the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and 
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also asserted that the EPA erred in calculating MACT 
floors for existing sources based on actual emissions performance 
rather than on enforceable limitations to which existing sources are 
subject. The commenter argues this contravenes the plain language of 
CAA section 112(d)(3), which requires the MACT floor to be based on the 
``average emission limitation achieved ``by the best performing 
sources.''
    Response: Regarding the assertion that the assessment of risk 
should affect

[[Page 55710]]

whether gap-filling standards are required consistent with the LEAN 
\43\ decision, the EPA disagrees. The EPA has an independent statutory 
authority and obligation to conduct the technology review separate from 
the EPA's authority to conduct a residual risk review. The EPA's 
finding that there is an ample margin of safety under the residual risk 
review in no way obviates the EPA's obligation to require more 
stringent standards under the technology review where developments 
warrant such standards. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the CAA section 
112(d)(6) technology review and 112(f)(2) residual review are 
``distinct, parallel analyses'' that the EPA undertakes 
``[s]eparately.'' Nat'l Ass'n for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 1, 
5 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In other recent residual risk and technology 
reviews, the EPA determined additional controls were warranted under 
technology reviews pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) although the 
Agency determined additional standards were not necessary to maintain 
an ample margin of safety under CAA section 112(f)(2).\44\ The EPA has 
also made clear that the Agency ``disagree[s] with the view that a 
determination under CAA section 112(f) of an ample margin of safety and 
no adverse environmental effects alone will, in all cases, cause us to 
determine that a revision is not necessary under CAA section 
112(d)(6).'' \45\ While the EPA has considered risks as a factor in 
some previous technology reviews,\46\ that does not compel the Agency 
to do so in this rulemaking. Indeed, in other instances, the EPA has 
adopted the same standards under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 
112(d)(6) based on independent rationales where necessary to provide an 
ample margin of safety and because it is technically appropriate and 
necessary to do so, emphasizing the independent authority of the two 
statutory provisions.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \44\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Refractory Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and 
Technology Review. (86 FR 66045). November 19, 2021; National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology Standards; and Manufacture of Amino/
Phenolic Resins. (79 FR 60898, 60901). October 8, 2014.
    \45\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and 
Publishing Industry. (76 FR 22566, 22577). April 21, 2011.
    \46\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Organic 
Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry. (71 FR 76603, 76606). December 21, 2006. See 
also Proposed Rules: National Emission Standards for Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning. (73 FR 62384, 62404). October 20, 2008.
    \47\ National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Secondary Lead Smelting, 77 FR 556, 564). January 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The language and structure of CAA section 112 further underscores 
the independent nature of these two provisions. While the EPA is only 
required to undertake the risk review once (8 years after promulgation 
of the original MACT standards), it is required to undertake the 
technology review multiple times (every 8 years after promulgation of 
the original MACT standard). That Congress charged the EPA to ensure an 
ample margin of safety through the risk review, yet still required the 
technology review to be conducted on a periodic basis, demonstrates 
that Congress anticipated that the EPA would strengthen standards based 
on technological developments even after it had concluded that the 
revision was not warranted under CAA section 112(f) . This provision's 
CAA section 112's overarching charge to the EPA to ``require the 
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air 
pollutants subject to this section (including a prohibition on such 
emissions)'' further demonstrates that Congress sought to minimize the 
emission of hazardous air pollution wherever feasible independent of a 
finding of risk.
    When the EPA sets MACT standards pursuant to the LEAN \48\ decision 
to fill regulatory gaps during a CAA section 112(d)(6) technology 
review, it must do so without consideration of risk. To the extent the 
commenter asserts that considerations of risk are relevant at this 
stage and that the process for setting MACT standards should be 
approached differently in the CAA section 112(d)(6) context than during 
the initial promulgation of standards for a source category, we 
disagree. The CAA section 112(d) clearly outlines the approach the EPA 
must follow in setting MACT standards. The EPA is finalizing 23 MACT 
standards that address 25 previously unregulated pollutants and source 
combinations at the MACT floor level of control pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(3) or 112(h), and as discussed elsewhere in the preamble and in 
the preamble to the proposal, Congress set forth a prescriptive and 
clear process that the EPA must follow in determining the MACT floor; 
that process does not include consideration of risk. Nothing in either 
the statute or the LEAN \49\ decision suggests that MACT floors are to 
be calculated differently subsequent to a CAA section 112(f) risk 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \49\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also disagrees that the CAA allows the EPA to take costs 
into consideration in determining MACT floors. The D.C. Circuit has 
ruled that costs are not to be considered when setting MACT floor 
standards. In Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 
(``Nat'l Lime''), the Court clearly stated that cost should only be 
considered when evaluating whether ``beyond the floor'' emission 
standards should be adopted: . ``Cost, however, may be taken into 
account only in considering beyond-the-floor emissions limitations,'' 
and that ``cost may not influence the determination of a MACT floor,'' 
which depends exclusively upon the emissions reductions achieved by the 
best-performing sources. Id. at 640 (emphasis added).
    Requiring the consideration of costs in setting the MACT floor 
would conflict with the plain language of CAA section 112(d)(3). 
Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA provides that the emission standards 
developed under this section ``shall not be less stringent than'' the 
emission performance of the best controlled similar source, for new 
sources; and ``shall not be less stringent, and may be more stringent 
than'' the emission performance of the top 12% of existing sources for 
categories with more than 30 sources, or the top 5 sources for 
categories with fewer than 30 sources, for existing sources. This 
language provides a clear mandate and does not indicate discretion to 
consider cost.
    We note in this context that for the Coke PQBS source category, 
based on the data submitted to the EPA by the industry, all facilities 
should be able to meet the MACT floor limits developed for the 
previously unregulated HAP and unregulated sources of HAP without the 
installation of additional controls. Commenters who raised claims of 
exorbitant costs to meet the new MACT floors did not provide any 
additional data contradicting the EPA's findings; thus, the EPA does 
not find any support for these claims.
    Regarding the commenter's claim that the MACT floors must be based 
on emissions legally allowed rather than actual performance, the D.C. 
Circuit has spoken to this issue several times, including in Nat'l 
Lime, where the court stated that the MACT floor depends exclusively on 
the emissions reductions ``achieved'' by the best-performing

[[Page 55711]]

sources rather than the standard of ``achievability.'' In Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662-64 (D.C. Cir 1999), the court found that the 
individual emission levels set by EPA for MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 129 could not be supported because the emissions 
limitations that the EPA relied upon to set the numeric floor for each 
pollutant did not appear to reflect the actual individual pollutant 
emission levels being achieved by the best performing sources.\50\ The 
court remanded the standards to better explain how the emissions 
limitations represented the actual performance of the best units or to, 
instead, use more reliable data. Because the EPA could not explain the 
original use of the emission limitations, on remand, the agency used 
actual performance data to establish the final standards. When the D.C. 
Circuit reviewed the EPA's approach in response to the remand, it found 
the Agency's use of the actual emissions data in lieu of the permit 
limits reasonable. See Medical Waste Inst. v. EPA, 645 F.3d 420 426 
(D.C. Cir. 2011). The D.C. Circuit in Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal 
Authority v. EPA evaluated this same issue, again in the context of the 
analogous CAA section 129, determining that ``actual'' emissions, not a 
``reasonable estimate,'' should be utilized to develop a standard. See, 
generally, 358 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (``Northeast Maryland''). 
Thus, MACT standards should be based on measurements that represent 
actual performance, not regulatory limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The CAA section 129 is highly analogous to CAA section 112 
because the language found in both sections specifies that the 
respective ``degree of reduction in emissions'' cannot be less 
stringent than the ``emissions control that is achieved in practice 
by the best controlled similar unit.'' See CAA sections,129(A)(2) 
and 112(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The D.C. Circuit in Northeast Maryland squarely rejected EPA's 
attempt to base MACT floors on ``emission limits'' set forth in state 
permits.\51\ Petitioners specifically contended that ``there is nothing 
in the record to demonstrate that a state permit limits . . . reflect 
`the average emissions limitation achieved' '' by the best performing 
units; environmental petitioners in Northeast Maryland claimed that it 
was likely that sources were overachieving beyond their permit limits, 
arguing that ``the regulatory limits are in fact much higher than the 
emissions that units achieve in practice.'' Id. at 954. The court held 
that ``[g]iven the absence of evidence that the permit levels reflect 
the emission levels of the best-performing [units] . . . we cannot 
uphold the MACT floors.'' Id. at 954. Thus, the court specifically held 
that the establishment of a CAA section 129 MACT standard based on 
state permit limits (i.e., an ``emission limitation'')--alone and 
otherwise refraining from measuring ``actual'' emissions--was 
insufficient to meet the purposes of the statute. Other courts have 
likewise declined to impute the definition of ``emission limitation'' 
found in CAA section 302(k) to signify that EPA should ignore actual 
emission statistics. See Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v EPA, 255 
F.3d 855, 860-61 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Note that in Northeast Maryland, the EPA tried to justify 
basing CAA section 129 standards on state permit ``emission 
limitations,'' not through the argument currently presented by the 
commenter (i.e., that 302(k) is a narrow definition that precludes 
utilizing ``actual'' emissions) but, rather, because ``[p]ermit 
limits and regulatory limits provide a reasonable estimate of the 
actual performance [].'' [Northeast Maryland, 358 F.3d 936, at 954].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter contended that the EPA found through its RTR 
that risks due to the HAP emissions from coke ovens' PQBS are 
``acceptable''; that the existing PQBS rule ``provides an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health''; and that there ``are no 
developments in practices, processes or control technologies that 
necessitate revision of standards for this source category'' (citing 88 
FR 55858, 55858). The commenter argued that the EPA's sole reason for 
proposing the new MACT limits is to comply with its interpretation of 
LEAN v. EPA,\52\ but that while LEAN requires that the EPA ``address'' 
all HAPs known to be emitted by a source category, it does not mandate 
that the EPA set numerical MACT floors for every HAP, particularly 
those that are already controlled to an adequate margin of safety. In 
support of this argument, the commenter quoted language from the LEAN 
decision that ``an emission standard includes as many limits as needed 
to control all the emitted air toxics of a particular source category'' 
(emphasis added by commenter). The commenter asserts that, given a 
finding that risks are acceptable pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), 
the EPA should conclude, consistent with the commenter's interpretation 
of the LEAN decision, that it is not ``necessary'' to amend the MACT 
standard to include these limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's reading of the 
LEAN \53\ decision. The Court in LEAN did not consider the relationship 
of risk review under CAA section 112(f)(2) and technology review under 
CAA section 112(d)(6). Nor did the Court have occasion to consider 
whether a standard for a pollutant previously unregulated at a source 
category must consider costs. The language quoted by the commenter 
regarding ``as many limits as needed'' thus could not be related to 
either consideration. The context of quoted language is that the Court 
was rejecting an argument that CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review 
could be completed without regulating all previously unregulated 
pollutants. LEAN thus requires that the EPA promulgate ``as many limits 
as needed'' so that all pollutants from a source category are 
regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the MACT floors for 
PQBS sources were not developed with enough data, resulting in an 
invalid upper prediction limit (UPL) calculation. The commenter stated 
that more data would result in lower MACT limits. The commenter 
contended that a MACT floor based on a UPL calculation is, by design, 
very susceptible to variability in the underlying dataset, in addition 
to the average or mean value [of the data]. In other words, a data set 
with a high variance will result in a larger UPL than one with a lower 
variance for the same mean value. Thus, the variability in the dataset 
significantly influences the estimated UPL and the MACT floor in almost 
every instance. The commenter continued that an examination of the 
details of several calculations in the proposal illustrates the 
unreliability of the calculations underlying the MACT floors 
established in the proposed rule. For each MACT floor pool, there were 
at best four or five sources, and in some instances, there were just 
two sources that provided data--a small pool of data with high 
variability. The commenter requested that the EPA collect additional 
data to increase the data pool, to conduct proper validation of the 
data to eliminate any outliers, and take other measures necessary to 
improve the data set. The commenter is hopeful that a larger data pool 
will the lower the variance and result in more meaningful MACT floors. 
The commenter also requested that the EPA reassess the MACT floor 
calculations which resulted in MACT floors with higher levels than most 
if not all individual test data runs from which they were based.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
MACT floor determinations are based on insufficient data. Emission 
limits based on testing are necessarily an extrapolation from data that 
does not account for operations in all circumstances at all times. Each 
MACT

[[Page 55712]]

standard is based on limited data from sources whose emissions are 
expected to vary over their long-term performance. For this reason, and 
because sources must comply with the MACT standards at all times, 
consideration of variability is a key factor in establishing these 
standards. This variability in emissions is due to numerous factors, 
including operation of control technologies, variation in combustion 
materials and combustion conditions, variation in operation of the unit 
itself, and variation associated with the emission measurement 
techniques. In order to account for variability that is reflected in 
the available data that we use to calculate MACT floors, we use the 
UPL, which represents the average emissions achieved by the best 
performing sources considering variability.
    In defining the parameters for the MACT floor, Congress recognized 
that standards will necessarily be based on data that does not account 
for all operating scenarios. Section 112(d)(3)(A) of the CAA provides 
that MACT standards shall reflect the average of the best performing 
sources ``for which the Administrator has emissions information.'' For 
categories comprised of five or fewer sources, standards shall reflect 
the best performing sources ``for which the Administrator has or could 
reasonably obtain emissions information.''
    The MACT standards being promulgated in this rule reflect available 
information, including additional information brought forward by 
industry during the comment period. The EPA sent 2 CAA section 114 
testing requests to coke oven companies in 2016 and 2022 to collect 
test data to be used in the MACT determinations. The data used for the 
proposed MACT limits were all the data that were available to the EPA 
at that time. The EPA used these data to calculate the proposed limits. 
However, as explained in responses to previous comments in this 
section, the EPA revised some of these limits after incorporating 
additional data received after publication of the proposed rule. These 
changes are described in the Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum,\54\ 
available in the docket for this rule. Though the coke oven companies 
did not in all instances provide the data sought by the EPA in its 2016 
and 2022 information requests, the data collection effort demonstrates 
that the EPA made reasonable efforts to obtain a broad set of data. The 
requirement for establishing the minimum stringency level under CAA 
section 112(d)(3) for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 
sources is that the EPA base those standards on ``the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources (for which the 
Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information).'' 
These final standards meet that requirement as explained above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC--Final 
Rule. D. L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, it is not uncommon for MACT standards to be based 
on data sets that are comprised of test results and therefore do not 
represent all known operating scenarios. Some data sets are more 
limited than others, and the EPA has explained its approach to the more 
limited data sets in memoranda Approach for Applying the Upper 
Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets, versions of which are tailored to 
promulgation of each MACT standard as appropriate. A version of this 
memorandum is included in the docket for these rules.\55\ The D.C. 
Circuit has upheld the EPA's approach to basing MACT standards on 
limited data sets. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 895 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. 
Circuit, 2018). The approach to MACT floor calculation used here is 
substantially the same as that which was upheld in Sierra Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited 
Datasets. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-
0891 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters expressed concern that the lack of data used to 
develop MACT floors for PQBS sources (pushing, battery stacks, main 
stacks, HNR B/W stacks) do not show the variability in operation of the 
coke units taking into account the operating coke units not included in 
the dataset. The commenters stated that due to the lack of sufficient 
data, the MACT limits are lower than they would be with more data and, 
therefore, may require application of control technology that is not 
feasible or cost-effective.
    One commenter asserted that the limited amount of test data does 
not accurately represent emissions because the data do not account for 
normal variability in operations, variability of coal blends and 
suppliers, and seasonal effects. Without additional test data, the 
commenter expects the proposed limits will be regularly exceeded, 
forcing facilities to install expensive controls or curtail operations 
to meet the limits.
    The commenter asserted it is critical that any standards be 
established using complete data and UPL methodologies that adequately 
account for variability in operating conditions (e.g., normal and 
extended coking times) and in raw materials (e.g., coal content). 
Referring to the Technology Review and Cost memoranda, the commenter 
asserted the lack of demonstrated technical feasibility and the 
extremely high cost of add-on controls highlights the importance of 
setting standards that can be achieved by the MACT floor facilities 
under various operating conditions and accounting for variation in raw 
materials. The commenter contended that if the EPA proceeds to finalize 
the proposed MACT floor emission limits, it first should revise the 
limits by employing an additional UPL adjustment factor to account for 
variability that is not adequately reflected in the current data. The 
commenter claimed that the EPA has made such an adjustment in other 
rules.
    The commenter contended that a single test covering less than a 
handful of operating hours does not represent normal emissions from a 
unit at all times over the range of normal operating conditions during 
a typical year. Actual emissions will vary from time to time not only 
due to normal variations in process operations (differing coking times, 
variability in composition of feed materials and fuels, process 
operating conditions, etc.), but also due to seasonal variations in 
ambient weather conditions such as temperature, precipitation, and 
humidity (and corresponding impacts on fuel heat input, feed materials 
temperatures, etc.). For example, emissions of Hg are highly dependent 
on chemical content within the raw materials (e.g., Hg in coal). 
Mercury and chloride content in coal varies not only between coal 
mines, but also within a coal seam at the same mine. The commenter 
asserted that for these reasons, the variability of emissions is under-
represented in the calculated UPLs for the proposed rule, resulting in 
emission limits that cannot be achieved with the EPA's stated 
confidence and frequency. As such, the commenter stated it is not 
appropriate to establish standards using such limited emissions 
performance data as used in the proposed rule.
    One commenter noted that in section 2.1.2 of the Technology Review 
for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack and Coke Oven 
Batteries Source Categories, the EPA identifies potential additional 
control technologies for pushing including ACI

[[Page 55713]]

for Hg and PAHs, and wet alkaline scrubbers (WAS) for AG and HCN. But 
based on its review, the EPA concludes that ``[n]o capture technology 
has been identified that demonstrates reduced emissions from pushing 
beyond the current technologies in use; therefore, no recommendations 
are made to pushing capture or control technology under this review.''
    The commenter noted that in section 2.3.2 of the Technology Review 
Memorandum, the EPA identifies potential additional control 
technologies for battery stacks including ACI for Hg, and WAS for AG, 
HCN, and non-Hg HAP metals. The EPA similarly concludes that 
``[b]ecause no other add-on control technology was identified, a 
control strategy based on control device technology for battery stacks 
is not recommended at this time.''
    The commenter asserted the lack of demonstrated technical 
feasibility and the extremely high cost of add-on controls in the Cost 
Memorandum highlights the importance of setting standards that can be 
achieved by the MACT floor facilities under various operating 
conditions and accounting for variation in raw materials. The MACT 
floor test data sets are too limited and do not represent normal 
variability in emissions and operating conditions. The commenter 
asserted it is critical that any standards be established using 
complete data and UPL methodologies that adequately account for 
variability in operating conditions (e.g., normal and extended coking 
times) and in raw materials (e.g., coal content). Without additional 
test data to revise the limits, the commenter expects the proposed 
limits, which are based on inadequate data according to the commenter, 
will be regularly exceeded, forcing facilities to install expensive 
controls or curtail operations in order to meet the limits.
    Another commenter asserted the EPA incorrectly established the 
proposed HNR HRSG main stack emission limits using only a limited 
subset of the available data, thus, the data set is incomplete and not 
representative of HNR operating conditions. The commenter described the 
test data from the 2016 ICR and the 2022 ICR, on which the MACT floor 
calculations are based, as ``very limited.'' The commenter contended a 
much larger dataset that more accurately represents trial-to-trial and 
plant-to-plant variations is available from compliance tests conducted 
on these sources in prior years, yet the EPA provides no explanation 
for why it excluded this larger body of stack test data from its MACT 
floor calculations.
    The commenter asserted the EPA's use of the limited data set and 
its UPL approach for setting MACT limits did not reasonably account for 
variability. The commenter contended there are too few data points for 
a statistically valid analysis and limit. The UPL calculation relies 
upon estimating the true average and true variance. While the 
estimation of the average can be confidently done with a small number 
of samples, the estimation of the variance requires a substantially 
larger number of samples and in particular samples that cover the range 
of varying factors.
    The commenter asserted the EPA's decision to base the proposed rule 
requirements on limited data is arbitrary and capricious, and that the 
EPA gave no explanation for its decision to ignore relevant information 
provided by the types of facilities to which the proposed limits would 
apply. The commenter cited language from a court case holding that 
agencies ``must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory 
explanation for its action including a `rational connection between the 
facts found and the choice made.' '' Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State 
Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The commenter also cited 
the EPA's Guidelines for MACT Determinations under Section 112(j) 
Requirements (Feb. 2002) (``It is not necessary for the MACT floor to 
be determined based on emissions information from every existing source 
in the source category or subcategory if such information is not 
available. The permitting authority, however, should check with the EPA 
Regional Offices and the EPA Headquarters for any available information 
that could be used in determining the MACT floor'').
    The commenter asserted the EPA must recalculate the HNR HRSG main 
stack limits using all available stack test data from 2006 through 2022 
from SunCoke HNR HRSG main stacks at Haverhill, Middletown, and Granite 
City, and the Cokenergy HRSG main stack at Indiana Harbor. The 
commenter argued the 45-day comment period did not provide sufficient 
time for them to fully evaluate and propose more appropriate and 
accurate revised limits. Nonetheless, the commenter noted their 
preliminary estimates (correcting for the arbitrarily confined dataset 
used) demonstrate that the UPL calculations used must be revised 
significantly.
    The commenter noted the EPA expects their facilities (with the 
exception of the Jewell coke plant) to meet the proposed bypass vent 
stack limits with no additional controls. However, the commenter 
asserted, this expectation may be wrong as the emission limits are 
based on a very limited data set. The commenter contended additional 
controls may be required to meet the proposed bypass vent limits at 
some or all of their heat recovery facilities. (The commenter discussed 
controls needed for SunCoke's Jewell facility separately in their 
comment letter). The commenter explained that waste gases exiting the 
bypass vent stacks are typically in the 1300 [deg]F to 2000 [deg]F 
temperature range. To install any kind of additional pollution control 
equipment on the bypass vent stacks would first require cooling the 
high temperature waste gases significantly, using HRSGs or similar 
equipment, to a level that is appropriate for the specific control 
equipment. The current layout of their plants and the limited space 
available in and around the bypass vent stacks make it extremely 
challenging to design and install additional HRSGs, route additional 
ductwork, and install any additional control equipment for the bypass 
vent stacks. The commenter asserted, even if this could be engineered, 
the cost effectiveness ($/ton removed) would be extremely high 
considering the bypass vent stacks are used and open for venting only a 
fraction of the time on an annual basis. Even then, any time that 
bypass venting was required for any reason, the source would not be 
able to meet the proposed limits because it is not technically feasible 
to install controls directly on waste heat stacks.
    Other commenters stated the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart CCCCC and subpart L are based on limited data that were not 
peer-reviewed data and do not consider operational variations. 
Additional commenters stated any amendments made to the existing 
regulations should be consistent with the CAA and based on sound 
science.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the number of 
runs in the MACT dataset was insufficient to develop MACT standards. As 
an example that supports this point, new source MACT limits are 
commonly developed from data for a single test at the one top 
performing facility, which typically includes three test runs.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that UPL 
calculations do not incorporate variability into the UPL-based limit. 
The use of the UPL to account for variability was upheld in U.S. Sugar 
v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579 (D.C. Circuit, 2016). That the UPL already 
incorporates variability into the calculated value is explained in the 
memorandum, Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT

[[Page 55714]]

Floors,\56\ hereafter referred to as the ``UPL Memorandum,'' located in 
the docket for this rule, as follows: ``There are several key points, 
addressed in more detail below, that underlie the EPA's methodology for 
calculating MACT floor standards through the use of the UPL. First, the 
floor standards reasonably account for variability in the emissions of 
the sources used to calculate the standards. This variability occurs 
due to a number of factors, including measurement variability (both 
sampling and analysis) and short term fluctuations in the emission 
levels that result from short-term changes in fuels, processes, 
combustion conditions, and controls. Second, because the emissions data 
available to the EPA is in the form of short-term stack tests and the 
standards must be complied with at all times, the agency uses the UPL 
to estimate the average emissions performance of the units used to 
establish the MACT floor standards at times other than when the stack 
tests were conducted. Thus, the UPL results in a limit that represents 
the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 
sources over time, accounting for variability in emissions 
performance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT 
Floors. Memorandum from D. L Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-
0890. September 2, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 
standards should be revised to use a larger pool of test data to 
account for variability in operating conditions. It is incorrect to 
assume that including more data will cause the average or UPL to 
reflect more variability. Depending on the additional data, the 
increase in the size of the dataset may outweigh any additional 
variability and lower the UPL limit. That the UPL represents the 
average emission performance is described in the second point in the 
previous paragraph citing the UPL Memorandum.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT 
Floors. Memorandum from D. L Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-
0890. September 2, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA handled the limited datasets used to set the 
MACT limits (pushing new source limits: Hg, AG, HCN, and PAH and 
battery stack new source limits: Hg, PM, AG, HCN) as per the procedures 
in the memorandum Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to 
Limited Datasets.\58\ In Sierra Club v. EPA 895 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. 
Circuit, 2018), the Court decided that the EPA had sufficiently 
explained the general application of the UPL to small/limited datasets 
and denied the petition for review as to the general application of the 
upper prediction limit to limited datasets as defined by the EPA: ``We 
deny the Environmental Petitioner's petition for review as to the 
general application of the upper prediction limit to limited datasets 
as defined by the EPA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited 
Datasets. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-
0891 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA did not have data for each existing pushing technology as 
shown in table 8, which lists the existing NESHAP PM pushing limits by 
technology, and as compared to table 9, which shows the data collected 
as part of the CAA section 114 request for this rulemaking, with 
pushing technology identified. Therefore, separate MACT limits were not 
developed for each pushing technology from the data submitted to the 
EPA. In addition, any MACT limits that might be set for subcategories 
would have less variability than the data in the pooled MACT limit for 
all pushing technologies.

                        Table 8--Existing 40 CFR part 63 Subpart CCCCC PM Pushing Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Source                                  Pollutant        gr/dscf         lb/ton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokeside shed...................................................              PM            0.01  ..............
Cokeside shed vented to CD......................................              PM            0.01  ..............
Moveable shed/hood&CD...........................................              PM  ..............            0.02
Mobile scrubber car:
    Short battery...............................................              PM  ..............            0.03
Mobile scrubber car:
    Tall battery................................................              PM  ..............            0.01
Mobile scrubber car:
    Mobile CD...................................................              PM  ..............            0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Table 9--Available Pushing Data By Facility And Pushing Equipment Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               CAA section    HAP data collected
             Facility                Unit description      Facility type        114 data       for MACT limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC-Burnsharbor-IN................  moveable shed/       ByP................            2016  Hg, AG, HCN, PAH.
                                    hood&baghouse.
CC-Middletown-OH.................  moveable shed/       ByP................            2016  Hg, AG, HCN, PAH.
                                    hood&baghouse.
CC-Monessen-PA...................  moveable shed/       ByP................            2016  Hg, AG, HCN, PAH.
                                    hood&baghouse.
SC-GraniteCity-IL................  flat push hot car    HNR................            2016  Hg.
                                    mobile scrubber
                                    car&multiclone.
SC-Middletown-OH.................  flat push hot car    HNR................            2016  AG, HCN, Hg, PAH.
                                    mobile scrubber
                                    car&multiclone.
ABC-Tarrant-AL...................  moveable shed/       ByP................  ..............  none.
                                    hood&baghouse.
CC-Warren-OH.....................  mobile scrubber      ByP................  ..............  none.
                                    car--short battery.
BLU-Birmingham-AL................  moveable shed/       ByP................  ..............  none.
                                    hood&baghouse.
EES-RiverRouge-MI................  moveable shed/       ByP................  ..............  AG, HCN, PAH.
                                    hood&baghouse.
SC-EastChicago-IN................  moveable shed/       HNR................  ..............  none.
                                    hood&baghouse.
SC-FranklinFurnace-OH............  mobile scrubber car  HNR................  ..............  none.
                                    with multiclone.
SC-Vansant-VA....................  cokeside shed......  HNR................  ..............  none.
USS-Clairton-PA..................  moveable shed/       ByP................  ..............  none.
                                    hood&baghouse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55715]]

    For the proposal, the EPA evaluated potential control technologies 
for pushing sources as documented in the Proposal Technology Review 
Memorandum.\59\ The EPA found that the add-on controls for pushing were 
not cost effective and, therefore, we did not propose BTF limits for 
pushing sources. However, the EPA also estimated that the coke ovens 
pushing sources would be able to meet the MACT limits developed from 
the 2016 CAA section 114 data with no additional controls, as 
documented in the Proposal MACT/BTF Memorandum.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Technology Review for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, 
and Battery Stack and Coke Oven Batteries Source Categories. D.L. 
Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G.E. Raymond, RTI 
International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085-0873 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0682.
    \60\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCC--Proposed 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA collected test data from the 2016 CAA section 114 test 
requests for HNR HRSG main stacks. The EPA conducted a second CAA 
section 114 testing request in 2022 for additional stack testing data 
from HNR HRSG main stacks. The EPA used the available data to calculate 
the MACT limits, as described in the Proposal MACT/BTF Memorandum.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCC--Proposed 
Rule. D. L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SunCoke provided the EPA with previous stack test data from 2006-
2022 with their 2016 CAA section 114 submission. After the August 2023 
proposal, the EPA reviewed the previous test reports submitted that 
were within five years prior to 2016 and that matched the requirements 
for testing in the CAA section 114 requests to add to the MACT data 
pool. We determined that there were four test reports listed in table 
10 of this section, three for HNR HRSG main stacks and one for HNR B/W 
stacks, that were applicable to sources and pollutants in the CAA 
section 114 requests and, therefore, we have incorporated these data 
into a revised MACT floor calculation for the final rule.
    We received test data from Cokenergy, Inc., for HNR HRSG main 
stacks at the SunCoke facility in Indiana Harbor in 2022, but these 
data were received too late to incorporate into the proposed rule. 
These data also are included in the MACT limits for HNR HRSG main 
stacks for the final rule.
    In addition, we received test data from EES Coke on April 24, 2024, 
that included HAP test data from a February 21, 2024, emission test for 
pushing and battery stacks. We determined that of the HAP tested, the 
data for AG, HCN, and PAH for pushing and AG, HCN, and Hg from battery 
stacks were valid. Therefore, these data also were incorporated into 
the MACT limits.
    The additional test data added to the final MACT data pool that 
were not reflected in the proposed MACT limits are shown in table 10. 
The results of these additions to the MACT data pool are shown in table 
7 and documented in the Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.

                                Table 10--Additional Data Received After Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility ID                  Unit type           Unit tested           Pollutant          Test date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-GraniteCity-IL................  HNR HRSG main stack  main baghouse stack  PM.................       8/25/2011
SC-GraniteCity-IL................  HNR HRSG main stack  main baghouse stack  PM.................       5/30/2012
SC-Middletown-OH.................  HNR HRSG main stack  main baghouse stack  PM, Hg.............        4/1/2015
SC-Middletown-OH.................  HNR HRSG B/W stack.  HRSG bypass stack    PM, Hg.............       6/26/2012
                                                         #4.
Cokenergy........................  HNR main stack.....  HRSG main stack....  AG, Hg, nonmercury         2/2/2023
                                                                              HAP, PAH.
EES-RiverRouge-MI................  pushing............  pushing emission     AG, HCN, PAH.......       2/21/2024
                                                         control system
                                                         stack.
EES-RiverRouge-MI................  battery stacks.....  underfire            AG, HCN, Hg........       2/21/2024
                                                         combustion stack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the August 2023 proposal, the EPA estimated the costs for 
additional controls that would be used at the HNR facility without a 
HRSG to meet the proposed BTF limits for Hg and PM at HNR B/W stacks at 
this facility. The EPA has re-evaluated the proposed costs for the BTF 
limits based on comments received and revised the cost estimates for 
the HNR facility without HRSG. The revised costs are much higher than 
the costs at proposal ($7.5M capital and $4.6M annual costs ($2022) v. 
revised costs of capital $340M capital and $56M annual costs ($2023)). 
We also received comments that it would be infeasible to construct 
controls at this facility given the configuration of the facility 
between the bordering roads, rivers, and train tracks on all sides. 
Therefore, due to the physical constraints and high costs, the EPA is 
not finalizing the BTF standards for Hg and PM for HNR B/W stacks at 
facilities with no HRSG. As such, revised MACT standards for HNR B/W 
stacks were determined by incorporating the previous SunCoke Hg and PM 
test data described above and the data for the HNR facility without 
HRSG (previously used in the BTF analysis). The revised MACT limits for 
final rule apply to all HNR B/W stacks, i.e., HNR facilities with and 
without HRSG.
    The EPA agrees that the MACT standards should be consistent with 
the CAA and based on ``sound science'' as the commenter describes. The 
EPA utilized data conducted and submitted in compliance with two CAA 
section 114 requests, in 2016 and 2022, and additional valid data 
received after the proposed rule was published. The EPA developed the 
standards according to well-established CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
procedures, established EPA methods and policy, and case law and 
incorporated operational variability by applying a UPL to the MACT 
floors. See

[[Page 55716]]

the UPL Memorandum \63\ and Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum \64\ for 
details of the MACT standards development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT 
Floors. Memorandum from D.L Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina, to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0890. 
September 2, 2021.
    \64\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCC--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regard to the comment that the proposed amendments to PQBS and 
COB NESHAP are based on ``limited data'' that were not peer-reviewed, 
the EPA notes that it would be out of the ordinary to subject data used 
to support a CAA regulation to a scientific peer review process. The 
methods used to collect data are peer reviewed, and the EPA engaged in 
a dialogue with the coke oven plants regarding the data produced in 
response to a CAA section 114 request to ensure that data was 
representative. Finally, the notice and comment process to promulgate a 
rule is an opportunity for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
the data relied upon by the EPA. These measures typically relied upon 
by the EPA to ensure the quality of data were followed in this rule 
process.
    Finally, the requirement for establishing the minimum stringency 
level under CAA section 112(d)(3) for categories or subcategories with 
fewer than 30 sources is that the EPA base those standards on ``the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources 
(for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions 
information).'' These final standards meet that requirement.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA has not justified 
their decision to set BTF limits for their Jewell facility, nor has the 
EPA demonstrated that the limits are ``achievable'' as required by the 
CAA. The commenter argued the BTF limits are far from technically, 
physically, and economically achievable, however, even if they were, 
meeting the limits would have significant energy requirements and non-
air quality health and environmental impacts that the EPA 
insufficiently considered. Additionally, the EPA's determination that 
the BTF measures were ``cost-effective'' was based on erroneous data 
concerning not only the costs of such measures, but also their 
effectiveness at reducing Hg and other HAP emissions.
    The commenter said the EPA's costs are underestimated for other 
reasons as well, including the following:
     The EPA miscalculated the emissions reductions of the 
proposed BTF limits at their Jewell facility because they wrongly 
assumed the feasible reductions of a baghouse and ACI system on a long-
term basis. According to the commenter, 99 percent removal for the 
baghouse is a more realistic assumption of long-term removal than the 
99.9 percent removal assumed by the EPA. Similarly, for Hg, a baghouse 
with ACI combination can only reasonably provide 80 percent Hg removal 
on a long-term basis versus the 90 percent reduction assumed by the 
EPA.
     The EPA's estimates did not include cooling before 
subjecting the 1,600 [deg]F exhaust from the HNR B/W stacks to 
emissions controls, as would be necessary for the baghouse to function. 
The oven exhaust must be cooled from 1,600 [deg]F or more to a maximum 
of 400 [deg]F for high temperature bag material to function. And an air 
quench, as opposed to a water quench, would be required because the 
enormous water volumes otherwise required would far exceed the 
limitations of Dismal Creek, the source of plant cooling water. The air 
quench would result in a constant steam cloud within the valley. The 
commenter contended these two factors alone make a baghouse and an ACI 
system technically infeasible for this site.
     The ductwork costs assume only a nominal length of 
unlined, galvanized steel duct between the battery stacks and the air 
emission controls. No provision for refractory lining, and ductwork 
foundations, structural support, access platforms, and underground 
routing of the duct were considered.
     The assumed height of the exhaust stack was too low. Given 
the valley location of the Jewell facility, an exhaust stack of 
significant height should have been considered.
     A shaker baghouse--notably the lowest capital cost 
baghouse type--was assumed. Shaker baghouses are old technology no 
longer used in industry because of high maintenance requirements, 
challenges with operation, and degradation of removal efficiency over 
time. A compartmentalized, pulse jet baghouse is the industry standard 
for this application.
     The EPA failed to consider the characteristics of the 
exhaust gases and the requisite materials of construction.
     The EPA incorrectly assumed the volume of flue gas that 
would need to be treated based on arbitrary data from a single stack at 
a different plant.
     The EPA failed to consider the unique retrofit 
requirements that would be necessary given the age, configuration, 
layout, and underground utilities existing at the Jewell facility.
     The EPA significantly underestimated the amount of 
electricity usage and hazardous waste that would be generated.
     The EPA used an incorrect algorithm to calculate the total 
capital investment for ACI (Sargent & Lundy 2011).
     The EPA used an incorrect methodology to calculate the ACI 
rates. Based on the methodology included in a later study by the same 
authors (Sargent & Lundy 2017), the rate should be 699 lbs/hr rather 
than 50 lbs/hr, as the EPA assumed.
     The EPA did not sufficiently consider the infrastructure 
upgrades that would be needed to install controls to meet BTF limits at 
their Jewell facility.
     The EPA wrongly calculated the increased energy costs to 
meet the BTF limits for their Jewell facility. The commenter noted they 
have not been able to locate the EPA's energy analysis.
     The EPA underestimated the tons of hazardous dust disposal 
at 761 tpy.
    The commenter contended that their Jewell facility, which is in a 
river valley with rivers, a state road, railroad tracks, and extremely 
steep gradients on two sides, does not have sufficient space to install 
the size of baghouse(s) needed to control the exhaust from the COB. The 
commenter contended installing the infrastructure could require 
surfaces to be levelled and forested areas to be cleared. These 
electrical upgrades would likely impact wetlands, visual resources, 
soils, and/or vegetation and wildlife species in the affected areas, 
which the EPA does not appear to have considered.
    Response: The EPA agrees with some of the commenter's points and 
suggested revisions and has incorporated them into revised air 
pollution control device (APCD) costs and BTF Hg and PM HAP metals cost 
effectiveness, as described below. Details of the revised cost 
estimates can be found in the Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCC--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.

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

[[Page 55717]]

     The EPA revised the BTF cost estimates developed by the 
EPA for proposal using some, but not all, of SunCoke's suggestions 
submitted with their comments, such that the EPA's cost and cost 
effectiveness (CE) estimates now include the following SunCoke costs/
procedures that the EPA agrees are better estimates, as described in 
the Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum; \66\ increased duct length based on 
SunCoke provided values; increased the stack flowrates based on SunCoke 
provided values; added 1 baghouse for a total of 3 baghouses; decreased 
the operating hours; lowered Hg control efficiency based on SunCoke's 
comment about long-term removal efficiency; lowered baghouse control 
efficiency based on SunCoke's comment about long-term removal 
efficiency; different units of measurement for ACI injection rate (lb/
hr) based on SunCoke provided estimates; and itemized direct and 
indirect capital costs for installing baghouses. The estimated CE for 
Hg and non-Hg metals control were revised to $51K/lb and $14M/ton, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CCCCC--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The EPA did not use SunCoke's values/estimates/procedures 
for: ACI 2017 cost equation; estimating ductwork costs; 5 percent 
interest rate; and $44.25 labor rate. Instead, we used the EPA's 
previous method of estimating ACI control costs from 1996 proposed 
hazardous waste incineration NESHAP \67\ (using SunCoke's ACI lb/hr 
injection rates), the EPA Cost Manual for ductwork costs (using 
SunCoke's length of ductwork), 2022 interest rate of 7.5 percent, and a 
labor rate of $29.44/hr from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors. Proposed 
Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 61 FR 
17358. April 19, 1996. Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-04-19/pdf/96-7872.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The result of revising the costs components are as follows: 
estimated capital costs are $340M, estimated annual costs are $56M, 
with cost-effectiveness of $14M/ton non-Hg metals and $51,000/lb Hg. 
Based on these cost considerations along with concerns raised by the 
commenter above regarding infeasibility to install these controls, the 
EPA has decided to not promulgate the BTF standards. Therefore, the 
MACT floor emission limits will apply to all HNR waste heat stacks, 
including the SunCoke Vansant, Virginia waste heat stacks, regardless 
of the presence of HRSGs. See the Final Rule MACT/BTF Memorandum \68\ 
for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC--Final 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond and Michael Laney, RTI International. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 
2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees that the calculation for the increased electricity 
use was not explicitly documented in the information used for proposal. 
The values can be calculated using data in the attachment to the 
Proposal MACT/BTF Memorandum \69\ ``Appendix_D_BTFCosts_Bypass_ACI-
PBH'' excel file, in the tab `BH-duct8V', as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard 
Calculations, Cost Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for 
Coke Ovens Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC--Proposed 
Rule. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and G. 
Raymond, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.

    (1) Using cell B129 value of electricity 514,816 $/yr;
    (2) Divide by cell D112 electricity price 0.0671 $/kWh; and
    (3) Multiply by 2 for the two APCD configurations to obtain a 
total of 15.3 million kilowatt-hours of increased electricity use 
[Note, the preamble to the proposed rule erroneously cited 15.1 
million kilowatt-hour, due to rounding differences].
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the amendments 
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?
    As mandated by the LEAN \70\ court decision, the EPA is finalizing 
MACT standards for previously unregulated HAP emissions pursuant to CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The final MACT limits were developed using 
the valid data available to the EPA according to established procedures 
for development of MACT limits which includes accounting for operation 
variability with use of UPL procedures \71\ and accounting for small 
datasets.\72\ Based on the available data, we expect all facilities to 
be able to meet these MACT floor limits without the need for additional 
controls. These MACT floor-based limits are based on the UPL calculated 
with available data. All the test data results we have (based on 2- or 
3-run averages) are below the promulgated MACT floor limits. The UPLs 
account for variability and provide limits that reflect the 
requirements of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \71\ Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT 
Floors. Memorandum from D.L Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina, to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0890. 
September 2, 2021.
    \72\ Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited 
Datasets. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-
0891 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) for the NESHAP 
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP 
for Coke Oven Batteries

1. What did we propose pursuant to SSM for the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP for Coke Oven 
Batteries source categories?
    We proposed the removal of exemptions for periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) consistent with a 2008 court decision, 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and that the 
emissions standards apply at all times. In establishing the standards 
in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 
periods and, for the reasons explained in the proposal preamble, has 
not established alternate standards for those periods.
2. How did the amendments pursuant to SSM change in the final rule for 
the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and 
the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
    Only minor changes from those proposed were made for SSM for the 
NESHAP for PQBS and COB source categories.
3. What key comments did we receive on SSM and what are our responses?
    We received a few comments on SSM, with some in favor of the 
removal and some that were not. The key comments on SSM are summarized 
in this section along with the EPA's responses to the comments. Other 
comments received on SSM are summarized along with the EPA's responses 
in the Response to Comment \73\ document, which is located in the 
dockets to the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.

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

[[Page 55718]]

    Comment: A commenter said that eliminating the SSM provisions 
subjects coke manufacturers to penalties based on events that cannot be 
avoided. The commenter requested the EPA to develop work practice 
standards to address SSM and/or allow facilities to follow a SSM plan 
during SSM events. Two commenters said they disagreed with the EPA's 
proposal to eliminate the SSM provisions and that the emission 
standards applying during these periods. The commenters said that 
alternate limits must be established for emissions during these periods 
because the proposed limits in 40 CFR 63.7297 (``What emission 
limitations must I meet for HRSG main stacks?'') would be impossible to 
meet otherwise. The commenter continued that they believed the EPA 
should evaluate the need for a work practice standard that would allow 
coke facility owners/operators to address major malfunctions following 
a site-specific plan, in lieu of normal emission standards, and use the 
facilities' SSM plans to develop work practices. The commenter stated 
that the EPA has discretion to account for emissions that occur during 
malfunctions and set separate work practice standards where (1) 
sufficient information is available, and (2) the circumstances indicate 
that treating malfunction periods the same as normal operating periods 
would not be appropriate. The commenters noted that emissions during 
malfunction periods may increase until it is possible to complete 
repairs safely and restart the equipment and that coke facilities 
should have an option to meet work practice requirements for 
malfunction periods or meet the requirements applicable to normal 
operating periods. If a facility chooses to meet the requirements 
applicable to malfunction periods, then the work practice standard 
could require that the facility create and follow a malfunction work 
plan with site-specific operating conditions, unless doing so would not 
be possible due to safety considerations. A commenter disagreed with 
the EPA's proposal to eliminate the requirement to have a written SSM 
plan, and thus eliminate the ability of facilities to demonstrate 
compliance if the regulated entity complies with the plan during SSM.
    Response: The EPA expects control devices to be operating during 
startup and shutdown (SS); therefore, no additional requirements should 
be needed for startup or shutdown. The EPA asked for comments on 
whether any situations exist where separate standards, such as work 
practices, would be more appropriate during periods of SS rather than 
the current standard. The commenters did not provide a description of 
specific situations where work practice standards, or any specific work 
practices, would be more appropriate than the numerical emissions 
standards we are finalizing in this rule (or standards that were 
already in the NESHAP) that would be appropriate during startup or shut 
down.
    In regard to the commenter's statement that ``coke facilities 
should have an option to meet work practice requirements for 
malfunction periods or meet the requirements applicable to normal 
operating periods,'' the EPA notes that facilities always have the 
option of complying with the applicable limits and using work 
practices, even during a malfunction. As stated in the proposal 
preamble [88 FR 55890]: '' the standards that apply during normal 
operation apply during periods of malfunction.'' As the EPA has 
consistently explained, in the event that a source fails to comply with 
the applicable CAA section 112 standards, the EPA would determine an 
appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith 
efforts of the source to minimize emissions during the violative 
period, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 
cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. Additionally, 
the EPA will continue to evaluate violations on a case-by-case basis 
and determine whether an enforcement action is appropriate.'' The D.C. 
Circuit upheld the EPA's general approach to malfunctions in U.S. Sugar 
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016) (CAA section 112 ``permits 
the EPA to ignore malfunctions in its standard setting and account for 
them instead through its regulatory discretion'').
    With regard to commenters statements addressing the removal of SSM 
plan requirements, note that affected units are subject to emission 
standards at all times. The applicability of a standard during any SSM 
event will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and 
achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer 
necessary.
    Comment: A commenter agreed with removal of the SSM provisions 
because the EPA now lacks the authority to retain SSM exemptions. The 
commenter contended the EPA correctly proposed to remove SSM loopholes 
from Subparts L and CCCCC. The commenter explained that the CAA directs 
the EPA to set emission standards for all HAP emitted by a source 
category, and such emission standards must apply continuously. The 
[previous] existing emission standards allowed a general exemption 
during SSM periods. This general exemption is inconsistent with the 
Act's mandate that standards apply continuously, and as such, the D.C. 
Circuit struck it down in 2008, in Sierra Club v. EPA. The EPA thus 
lacks any authority to retain such an exemption when it reviews 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6): ``The obligatory periodic review 
and revision of `emission standards' thus must ensure that each source 
category's standard imposes appropriate limits. . . .'' Standards that 
violate the Act because they include SSM exemptions cannot be 
appropriate. Commenter stated that the EPA correctly declines to factor 
malfunction emissions into standards. The EPA's position is not only 
reasonable, but the only one consistent with the Act. Congress rewrote 
CAA section 112 in 1990 to ensure that emissions of HAPs would be 
controlled. During malfunctions, by definition, emission controls fail. 
Incorporating such emissions into standards would thus allow 
uncontrolled emissions, contrary to Congress's intent and binding D.C. 
Circuit precedent.
    Response: We acknowledge the support by the commenter. We note that 
malfunctions can include malfunction of process operations or 
monitoring equipment as well as failure of emission controls.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the amendments 
pursuant to SSM?
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are by 
definition, sudden infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 
(definition of malfunction). Nor are emissions during a malfunction 
able to be reliably measured with EPA methods which specify that these 
methods are only to be used during normal operations. The EPA 
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during 
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 
112 standards (either numerical or as work practices)and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 
606-610 (2016). The D.C. Circuit agreed with the EPA's approach, as it 
relates to the difficulties in determining an appropriate numerical 
standard that

[[Page 55719]]

would reflect the MACT limits required by CAA section 112 and the 
immense spread of variability that would ensue if the EPA were to 
include conditions during a malfunction. In essence, the D.C. Circuit 
concluded that any such standard would be too broad and would be 
meaningless with respect to the intent of CAA section 112 MACT 
standards.
    We are finalizing the removal of exemptions for periods of SSM 
consistent with a 2008 court decision, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and clarifying that the emissions standards 
apply at all times. We are not promulgating any separate standards for 
startup or shut down because the control devices in use in the industry 
operate at all times.
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated portions of two provisions in the 
EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously.
    With the issuance of the mandate in Sierra Club v. EPA, the 
exemptions that were in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) are null and void. 
The EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1)) on March 11, 2021, to 
reflect the Court order and correct the CFR to remove the SSM 
exemption. In this action, we are eliminating any cross-reference to 
the vacated provisions in the regulatory text including 40 CFR 
63.7310(a) and table 1 of the PQBS NESHAP and 40 CFR 63.300(e) and 
63.310 for the COB NESHAP. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are 
promulgating standards in these rules that apply at all times. We are 
also promulgating several revisions to table 1 of the PQBS NESHAP (the 
General Provisions applicability table) as is explained in more detail 
below and in the proposal preamble. For example, we are eliminating the 
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source 
develop an SSM plan. We also are eliminating or revising certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption 
as further described as follows.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
promulgating to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant 
in the absence of the SSM exemption. In promulgating the standards in 
this rule, the EPA has taken into account SS periods and, for the 
reasons explained as follows, has not promulgated alternate standards 
for those periods: The coke oven industry has not identified (and there 
are no data indicating) any specific problems with removing the SSM 
provisions due to the nature of the coke process to operate 
continuously. If an oven is shut down (cold), it often has to be 
significantly repaired before it can be restored to operational status 
before starting back up, which is the reason why coke ovens instead are 
put in (hot) idle mode when not operating.
    For all the above these reasons, we are finalizing that the 
standards for PQBS NESHAP and the COB NESHAP apply at all times 
including startup, shut down, and malfunction.

E. Other Issues

1. What did we propose?
    We did not propose any amendments that were expected to force 
facilities to close, as described in the economic analysis performed 
for the proposed rule. We also did not propose to list CBRP facilities 
under CAA section 112.
2. How did the amendments pursuant to Other Issues change for the 
NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the 
NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
a. Facility Closures
    We did not finalize any amendments that were expected to force 
facilities to close, as described in the economic analysis for the 
final rule. See section V.D.
b. Listing CBRP Facilities Under CAA Section 112
    In the final rules as in the proposal, we are not listing CBRP 
facilities under CAA section 112 but we intend to list CBRP operations 
as a source category under CAA section 112(c) in a separate, future 
regulatory action. We intend to provide the EPA's rationale for such 
listing in the future action along with details of the EPA's regulatory 
activities in regard to the CBRP facility. We will perform data 
gathering to support the listing using a CAA section 114 request that 
we intend to distribute by the end of the 2024 calendar year and that 
will request information related to CAA section 112 requirements.
3. What key comments did we receive on the Other Issues and what are 
our responses?
    The key comments on the Other Issues are summarized in this section 
along with the EPA's responses to the comments. Other comments received 
on these issues are summarized along with the EPA's responses in the 
Response to Comment \74\ document, which is located in the dockets to 
the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Facility Closures
    We received a few comments on the potential for facility closures 
as a result of the proposed amendments. These comments are summarized 
below along with the EPA responses.
    Comment: Commenters stated that they believe the EPA's proposed 
changes would cause additional coke plant closures or curtailments, 
leading to a decline in domestic steel and cast iron production. 
Commenters further stated that regulations rendering domestic 
cokemaking infeasible would further cripple the domestic steel and iron 
foundry industries, increase the necessity to import these products, 
hinder the U.S. transition to a low-carbon economy, and cause job loss 
in economically distressed areas. Commenters requested that the current 
proposal be modified to minimize impact to industry.
    One commenter stated that there are only two remaining blast 
furnace steelmakers in the U.S., namely Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc., and 
U.S. Steel, both of whom rely heavily on the coke industry to provide 
them millions of tons of coke annually. The commenter asserted that 
should SunCoke be forced to curtail or cease coke production to meet 
the new limits as required by the EPA rulemaking, SunCoke may be unable 
to meet its contractual obligations and be unable to supply steelmakers 
with the quantities of coke necessary to fuel the domestic steel 
industry.
    The commenter emphasized that a strong domestic steel industry is 
vital to national and economic security, the U.S. clean energy 
transition and decarbonization strategy, critical infrastructure, and 
the competitiveness of many domestic manufacturing industries. The 
domestic steel industry is the cleanest and most energy-efficient in 
the world; steel production in the

[[Page 55720]]

United States has the lowest GHG emissions intensity of the nine 
largest steel producing countries and the EU-27. The commenter 
contended that the curtailment of domestic steel production due to a 
coke supply shortage would make the U.S. dependent on imports of steel 
from countries where GHG emissions from steel production are 
substantially higher, not to mention the environmental emissions 
associated with shipping millions of tons of coke across the world. The 
commenter also asserted that their cokemaking process creates higher 
quality, higher strength coke that results in steelmakers using less 
coke in their blast furnaces and thereby lowering their GHG emissions. 
The commenter stated that SunCoke invests in maintaining and improving 
its cokemaking plants with environmentally superior technology and 
younger cokemaking assets.
    Other commenters contended our national security, in both the 
economic and military senses, depends on being able to convert iron ore 
into a usable product for our nation. Our manufacturing, 
transportation, construction, energy, and military all require steel. 
The U.S. steel industry cannot be 100 percent recycled steel as it 
needs new iron units for quality and quantity reasons. Coke batteries 
make coke, coke reduces iron oxide from in the ground to usable pig 
iron, and pig iron makes steel. It is fundamental to so much of the 
U.S. economy and we need U.S. Steel's coke batteries to remain 
operational and competitive.
    Several commenters contended the U.S. Department of Commerce has 
recognized that the domestic steel industry is vital to assuring our 
national security and maintaining critical infrastructure. It is 
crucial that we continue to maintain the balance of environmental 
responsibility and economic opportunity for our country. We should not 
risk the future of our remaining manufacturing jobs and national 
security. The U.S. Steel facilities are very important to our region 
and country. Working together, we can accomplish three important goals 
for future generations: protect our region's jobs, preserve our 
environment in which we work and live, and preserve our ability to 
convert iron ore into steel for national economic and military 
security.
    One commenter stated the proposed EPA rule threatens to make coke 
production uneconomical (through the cost of controls) and impractical 
(through compliance with the new standards that, as written, is a 
practical impossibility). If implemented, the proposed EPA rule will 
reduce coke reduction in the U.S. at a time when domestic steel 
production is more important than ever.
    Another commenter stated the proposed amendments could be 
detrimental to the coke industry and reduce U.S. production, with 
potentially negative ramifications for the U.S. economy.
    Another commenter stated over the past decade, numerous coke plants 
have been forced to close due to aging assets and increasing facility 
costs to meet existing environmental requirements. The EPA's proposed 
rule would only further this trend, by imposing unattainable emission 
limits, extensive compliance tests, and costly surveillance for all 
coke facilities. These new standards would cost coke plants millions of 
dollars in compliance and force many to shutter their doors due to the 
stringent and impractical demands.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the rule would 
cause additional coke plant closures or curtailments, leading to a 
decline in domestic steel and cast iron production. The EPA estimated 
that all sources can meet the MACT floor standards and would not have 
to install controls to meet the limits. Note, the EPA is not finalizing 
the BTF Hg and PM standards for HNR B/W stacks proposed for facilities 
with no HRSG.
    As explained in the memorandum Coke Ovens Risk and Technology 
Review: Compliance Costs \75\ prepared for the proposal, costs for 
fenceline monitoring were estimated at about $101,496 per facility 
including recordkeeping and reporting ($2022); costs for MACT 
compliance testing including recordkeeping and reporting for ByP 
facilities were estimated to range from $151,802 to $442,414; costs for 
MACT compliance testing for HNR facilities was estimated to range from 
$291,285 to $823,767. The MACT compliance testing is required in the 
final rule to be performed every 5 years or every permit cycle (at the 
beginning of the permit cycle), whichever period is shorter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Coke Ovens Risk and Technology Review: Compliance Costs. D. 
L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and G.E. Raymond, RTI 
International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2023. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As documented in the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) \76\ prepared 
for the proposed rule, based on the Small Business Association (SBA) 
standards and the company employment figures (shown in table 3-1 of the 
EIA), none of the firms that own affected coke facilities are small 
businesses and the compliance costs are small relative the revenues of 
the steel industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Oven Batteries, Technology Review (EPA-452/R-23-005). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All previous coke plant closures have been due to a combination of 
market reductions in demand for steel and, therefore, coke, and 
multiple noncompliance issues with their states for sources that were 
not Coke PQBS or COB mission sources but which required significant 
upgrades and cleanup costs.
    There currently are three ByP companies producing blast furnace 
coke at five facilities (two facilities recently shut down). There was 
an acquisition by Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., of AK Steel and ArcelorMittal 
in 2020 that reduced the number of companies but not the number of 
facilities. There is one HNR company producing blast furnace coke at 
five facilities and two ByP companies producing foundry coke at two 
facilities (one is cold idle).
    See sections V.C. and V.D. of this preamble for more information 
about the costs and economic impacts of these rules.
b. Listing CBRP Facilities Under CAA Section 112
    We received a few comments on listing CBRP facilities under CAA 
section 112. All except one were in favor of listing. These comments 
are summarized below along with the EPA response.
    Comment: Commenters stated that they believe the EPA should list 
the CBRP under CAA section 112 so that the standards can be updated in 
an RTR. The commenters requested that the EPA list the co-located CBRPs 
as a source category under CAA section 112. The commenters support the 
EPA's intentions to list co-located CBRP at ByP facilities as a source 
category under CAA section 112(c)(5). However, where the EPA has not 
fulfilled its duty to revise technology and risk standards for ByP 
recovery plants, the EPA must approach listing co-located CBRP with an 
increased sense of urgency. The commenters asserted the risk and 
technology review for CBRP was completed prior to the 1990 CAA 
Amendment framework and is due to be revised. Another commenter 
requested the EPA update standards on CBRP,

[[Page 55721]]

which are not included in this rulemaking but are sources of HAP at 
coke facilities. One commenter disagrees with the EPA's decision not to 
revise the standards for the CBRP. The commenter contends that the EPA 
must list co-located CBRP as a source under CAA section 112(c)(5) and 
issue standards.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that CBRP should be listed 
under CAA section 112. However, we need to gather information to 
support both listing and regulation and intend to do that by end of 
2024. In order to evaluate the CBRP effectively under CAA section 112, 
the EPA would need to use a CAA section 114 request to obtain 
additional data, which could include requests for testing, to enhance 
the quality of data used to develop the MACT standards, especially 
considering the complexity of the sources and the need for quantitative 
testing. The EPA would not be able to finalize a sound and appropriate 
rule within 2 years; we estimate that the EPA would need about 3 years 
or more to complete such a final rule. We intend to send a CAA section 
114 information request in 2024 to gather data for the future CAA 
section 112 regulation.
    Comment: A commenter addressed the history of CBRPs as a source 
category listed and the later de-listing pursuant to CAA section 
112(c), and the steps they believe necessary to re-list. The commenter 
noted that the 40 CFR part 61 subpart L NESHAP limits HAP emissions at 
CBRPs through equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR) work practice 
standards. The commenter continued that, based upon the 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart L requirements, in 2001, the EPA published a document delisting 
CBRP as a source category under CAA section 112(c). The commenter 
stated that the delisting decision was based on an EPA study where the 
EPA concluded that the benzene standard, applicable to all CBRP in the 
listed source category, would determine the floor for any CAA section 
112(d) standard; that the EPA did not know of any realistic ``beyond 
the floor'' options at the time of the de-listing; that the EPA 
believed that further rulemaking would result in no accompanying 
benefits; and that any new standard that the EPA would develop under 
CAA section 112(d) would be based on and be comparable to the existing 
standard both in terms of application and level of stringency. The 
commenter concluded that in order for the EPA to list CBRP as a new CAA 
section 112 source category, the Agency must first re-evaluate its 
earlier delisting decision and provide a rational basis for reversing 
this longstanding regulatory determination; and explain why regulating 
CBRP under multiple sets of standards would be authorized and 
technically sound.
    Response: We are not listing the CBRP source category as part of 
this final rule. As noted in the August 2023 proposed rule preamble, we 
intend to list CBRP operations, elements of which currently are 
addressed in the 40 CFR part 61 regulation, as a source category under 
CAA section 112(c)(5) in a future action. We plan to issue a CAA 
section 114 request for information regarding the CBRPs in calendar 
year 2024.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the amendments 
pursuant to these Other Comments?
a. Facility Closures
    There are no amendments included in this final rule that were 
expected to force facilities to close. The BTF standards for HNR 
facilities without HRSG are not included in this final rule. We are 
extending the compliance date for the MACT standards by 6 months, for a 
total of 18 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register, which should give facilities the time to prepare for the new 
standards.
b. Listing CBRP Facilities Under CAA Section 112
    We did not list CBRP facilities under CAA section 112 in this final 
rule because we need to gather information to support both listing and 
regulation and intend to do that by end of 2024. Gathering additional 
data will enhance the quality of data used to develop the MACT 
standards, especially considering the complexity of the sources and the 
need for testing. We intend to list CBRP operations as a source 
category under CAA section 112(c)(5) in a separate, future regulatory 
action. We also intend to provide the EPA's rationale for such listing 
in this separate future action with details of the EPA's plan for 
future regulatory activities for the CBRP. We intend to send a CAA 
section 114 information request by end of 2024 to gather data for the 
future CAA section 112 regulation.

F. Compliance

1. What did we propose?
    The proposed compliance date for the new MACT limits in the PQBS 
NESHAP was 1 year after publication of the final rule. The proposed 
compliance date for the two BTF emission limits for HNR B/W stack in 
the PQBS NESHAP was 3 years after publication of the final rule to 
allow time for the installation of ductwork and control devices. We 
estimated that the facility would need 3 years to complete this work 
and comply with the new PM limit due to the unique configuration of the 
facility. The proposed requirement for periodic compliance testing 
after the initial compliance demonstration with the required MACT 
standards was ``at the end of each permit cycle.''
    The proposed compliance date to begin fenceline monitoring under 
the COB NESHAP was 1 year after the publication date of the final rule; 
facilities must perform root cause analysis and apply corrective action 
requirements upon exceedance of an annual average concentration action 
level starting 3 years after the publication date of the final rule. 
The proposed compliance date under the COB NESHAP for the revisions to 
the limits for allowable leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes was 1 
year after publication of the final rule.
    We proposed the date for complying with the proposed SSM changes to 
be no later than the effective date of the final rule with the 
exception of recordkeeping provisions. For recordkeeping under the SSM, 
we proposed that facilities must comply with this requirement 180 days 
after the effective date of the final rule. Recordkeeping provisions 
associated with malfunction events would be effective no later than 180 
days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA proposed to 
require additional information for recordkeeping of malfunction events, 
so the additional time was necessary to permit sources to read and 
understand the new requirements and adjust record keeping systems to 
comply. The proposed reporting provisions were in accordance with the 
reporting requirements during normal operations and the semi-annual 
report of excess emissions.
    The proposed date for complying with the proposed electronic 
reporting submission requirements was 60 days after publication of the 
final rule for performance tests and 1 year after publication of the 
final rule or the date the template is made available on the CEDRI 
website for compliance reports.
2. How did the amendments related to compliance change for the NESHAP 
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks and the NESHAP 
for Coke Oven Batteries source categories?
    We changed the required initial MACT compliance in the final rule 
to be 18 months after publication of the final rule for all MACT 
emissions limits in the final rule. For the periodic MACT compliance 
testing, we are promulgating that periodic testing be conducted ``at

[[Page 55722]]

the beginning of each permit cycle or every 5 years, whichever is 
shorter.'' The remaining final promulgation compliance dates for the 
PQBS and COB NESHAP are unchanged from proposal and are as follows: 1 
year after the publication date of the final rule to begin fenceline 
monitoring; 1 year after publication of the final rule for complying 
with the revisions to the limits for allowable leaks from doors, lids, 
and offtakes; 1 year after publication of the final rule for compliance 
with the 20 percent opacity limit for HNR B/W stacks; and 1 year after 
publication of the final rule for compliance with the zero leaks from 
HNR oven doors and pressure monitoring in either ovens or tunnels.
    For SSM, the final promulgation compliance dates also are unchanged 
from proposal and are as follows: no later than the publication date of 
the final rule except for the recordkeeping provisions, which for 
startup and shutdown are 180 days after the effective date of the final 
rule and for malfunction events, the recordkeeping requirements are 
effective no later than 180 days after publication date of the final 
rule.
3. What key comments did we receive on compliance and what are our 
responses?
    We received a number of comments on compliance deadlines and 
compliance methods. Some commenters wanted shorter time periods for the 
deadlines and some wanted longer time periods. In regard to methods, 
some commenters wanted to use methods not included in the rules and 
some commenters wanted methods in the rules removed. The key comments 
on compliance are summarized in this section along with the EPA's 
responses to the comments. Other comments received on compliance are 
summarized along with the EPA's responses in the Response to Comment 
\77\ document, which is located in the dockets to the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Coke Ovens: 
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology 
Review, and Coke Oven Batteries Periodic Technology Review. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated they believe that, because Title V 
permits for coke plants can take years, based on the proposed rule 
text, facilities can delay the PM test indefinitely based on the timing 
of a Title V reissuance. The commenter requested that the EPA specify 
intervals to conduct performance testing in months or years rather than 
relative to the permit cycle. The commenter also requested that 
citations 40 CFR 63.7321(a) and 63.7333(a)(2) specify performance 
testing intervals in months or years to avoid facilities indefinitely 
delaying the PM emission limits test.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and instead have required 
testing ``at the beginning of each permit cycle or every 5 years, 
whichever is shorter'' instead of only every ``permit cycle.''
    Comment: Two commenters stated that because the EPA does not have 
enough data to calculate representative limits, facilities may not be 
able to meet limits without installing new controls. Therefore, 
facilities need 3 years to comply instead of proposed one year to allow 
facilities to do testing to evaluate the need for additional controls 
and to design, purchase, and install new equipment, if needed.
    Response: Based on available data, we estimate all facilities will 
be able to meet MACT floor limits without new controls. We looked at 
all the data available to the EPA and found that only one test run was 
slightly higher than the MACT floor for one HAP, but compliance is 
demonstrated a 3-run average and all the 3-run averages for all the HAP 
are below the MACT floor limits. These limits are based on the UPL 
calculated with available data. All the test data results we have 
(based on 3-run averages) are below the promulgated MACT floor limits. 
The UPL accounts for variability and provides upper bound limits based 
on available HAP emissions data for these sources. We have no evidence 
that indicates these facilities will need to install additional 
controls to meet these MACT floor limits, and the commenters requesting 
the full 3 years allowed by the statute did not provide such evidence. 
Rather, these commenters base their request on the assertion that 
because, in their view, there is not enough data to prove that 
additional controls are not needed, the compliance date should be set 
based on the assumption that they will be. The EPA does not believe 
this rationale is sufficient to justify delaying compliance for 3 
years. In the final rule, the EPA is allowing 18 months to comply with 
the MACT standards to allow sufficient time for the facilities to 
conduct the compliance emissions testing and in acknowledgement of the 
remote possibility that some additional action may be needed by 
facilities to confirm compliance. In that unlikely event, 18 months 
will allow additional time for the facility to confirm that they can 
meet the limit.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the amendments 
related to compliance?
    Based on consideration of comments and other relevant information, 
we are promulgating the same compliance dates as proposed for fenceline 
monitoring, revised leak limits, SSM, and ERT submissions. We conclude 
that the final compliance dates and timelines for these requirements 
are appropriate as described previously in this section of the 
preamble. However, we are promulgating that periodic testing for the 
MACT limits be conducted ``at the beginning of each permit cycle or 
every 5 years, whichever is shorter,'' to account for permit periods 
that can extend for many years beyond 5 years due to delays in permit 
reviews and to establish compliance at the beginning of the permit 
cycle because permit conditions may change from the previous permit 
cycle.
    For the MACT standards, as described in responses in previous 
subsection of this preamble, we made some adjustments to the dates and 
timelines based on consideration of comments. We conclude that the 
final compliance dates and timelines for the MACT standards are 
appropriate as described previously in this section of the preamble.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

    The following analyses of costs and benefits, and environmental, 
economic, and environmental justice impacts are presented for the 
purpose of providing the public with an understanding of the potential 
consequences of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of such 
impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this action 
under CAA section 112, which are based on the statutory factors the EPA 
discussed in sections II.A., IV.B.1., and IV.C.

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The affected sources are facilities in the Coke PQBS source 
category and the COB source category. These sources include any 
facility engaged in producing coke from coal, where either the ByP 
process or the HNR process is used. The coke production processes 
include pushing coke out of ovens, quenching hot coke with water; and, 
for HNR facilities only, also recovering heat from hot coke oven 
exhaust to produce steam and, in some cases, also power. In the coke-
making process, the production

[[Page 55723]]

of coke is achieved by the thermal distillation of coal in oven 
chambers made of brick or other heat-resistant material at temperatures 
approaching 2,000 [deg]F (1,100 [deg]C) to separate the gas, water, and 
tar in coal. The coke product is used as a fuel and source of carbon 
used in steelmaking. Based on the information we have, there are 11 
operating coke manufacturing facilities subject to these NESHAP and one 
idle facility.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    There are no measurable air quality impacts from this rule that can 
be guaranteed. However, the promulgated 21 new MACT floor standards for 
the PQBS NESHAP source category will ensure that emissions of these HAP 
do not increase and help ensure that air quality in the vicinity of 
coke oven facilities does not degrade over time. In addition, the 
promulgated reduction in allowable emissions from coke oven doors, 
lids, and offtakes in the COB source category will ensure that 
emissions of HAP do not increase and that air quality does not degrade 
over time. We also are promulgating fenceline monitoring, which would 
improve compliance assurance and potentially result in some 
unquantified additional emission reductions. Lastly, we also are 
requiring that standards apply during periods of SSM.
    The EPA has not quantified any benefits associated with this final 
rule, because all covered facilities are expected to already have HAP 
emissions levels that are below the final limits, based on facility 
data available to the EPA. However, the EPA anticipates that this final 
rule's new requirements will increase the likelihood of facilities 
successfully detecting any HAP emissions in excess of the specified 
thresholds, allowing for earlier corrective action and thus preventing 
pollution increases that could otherwise occur. The potential public 
health benefits associated with such prevention are difficult to 
estimate, given that they correspond to hypothetical scenarios of 
emissions beyond those indicated by current facility data, and are thus 
not quantified in the EPA's analysis

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Cost impacts are due to the required source testing that includes: 
testing every 5 years to demonstrate compliance with the promulgated 
MACT floor standards for PQBS; weekly opacity testing of HNR B/W heat 
stacks; daily visible leak testing of HNR ovens doors; and fenceline 
monitoring at ByP facilities. The total costs for the rules are 
estimated to be $4.0 million per year for the 11 operating facilities 
($2023), with $500,000 per facility, on average for the five HNR 
facilities and $250,000 per facility, on average, for the 6 ByP 
facilities. The compliance testing is estimated to cost $3.3 million 
total for the 11 operating facilities, with $300,000 per facility on 
average. The HNR B/W stack opacity testing is estimated to be $22,000 
total for the five HNR facilities, with $4,400 per facility on average. 
The HNR daily door leak testing with EPA Method 303A is estimated to be 
$105,000 total for the five HNR facilities, with $21,000 per facility 
on average. The fenceline monitoring costs are estimated to be $640,472 
for the six ByP facilities, with $107,000 per facility on average.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Coke Ovens Risk and Technology Review: Compliance Costs. 
D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and G.E. Raymond, 
RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA prepared an EIA for the final rule,\79\ which is available 
in the docket for this action. This final rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 section 3(f)(1), as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, since it is not likely to have an 
annual effect on the economy of $200 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, territorial, or tribal governments or 
communities. The EIA analyzed the potential cost impacts under the 
promulgated requirements, and the projected impacts are presented for 
the 2025-2036 time period. The EIA analyzes the projected impacts of 
the final rule in order to better inform the public about its potential 
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Economic Impact Analysis for the Final National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Oven Batteries, Technology Review (EPA-452/R-23-005). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the compliance costs, which are key inputs to an EIA, are small 
relative to the receipts of the affected industries, then the impact 
analysis may consist of a calculation of annual (or annualized) costs 
as a percent of sales for affected parent companies. This type of 
analysis is often applied when a partial equilibrium or more complex 
EIA approach is deemed unnecessary given the expected size of the 
impacts. The annualized cost per sales for a company represents the 
maximum price increase in the affected product or service needed for 
the company to completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the 
regulation. We conducted a cost-to-sales analysis to estimate the 
economic impacts of this promulgation, given that the equivalent 
annualized value (EAV), which represents a flow of constant annual 
values that would yield a sum equivalent to the present value of the 
compliance costs over the period 2025-2036. The EAV is estimated at 
$3.9 million using a 2 percent discount rate, $3.9 million using a 3 
percent discount rate, and $3.7 million using a 7 percent discount rate 
in 2022 dollars, which is small relative to the revenues of the steel 
industry (of which the coke industry is a part).
    There are five parent companies that operate active coke 
facilities: Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. U.S. Steel, SunCoke Energy, Inc., 
DTE Energy Company (EES Coke in River Rouge (Detroit), Michigan), and 
the Drummond Company (ABC Coke in Tarrant City, Alabama). Each reported 
greater than $1 billion in revenue in 2021. The EPA estimated the 
annualized compliance cost each firm is expected to incur and 
determined the estimated cost-to-sales ratio for each firm is less than 
0.2 percent. James C. Justice Companies owns the idled Bluestone Coke 
facility, and the EPA estimated the compliance cost-to-sales ratio, if 
the facility were to resume operations, would be less than 0.1 percent. 
Therefore, the projected economic impacts of the expected compliance 
costs of the promulgation are likely to be small. The EPA also 
conducted a small business screening to determine the possible impacts 
of the promulgated rule on small businesses. Based on the Small 
Business Administration size standards and business information 
gathered by the EPA, this source category has one small business, which 
would not be subject to significant cost by the promulgated 
requirements.
    In this section of the preamble and in the EIA \80\ for this final 
rule, we focus on the compliance cost impacts to the firms who own 
affected facilities. Other than the simple cost-to-sales analysis 
described earlier in this section, we do

[[Page 55724]]

not have the data or methods to assess potential price impacts or 
distributional consequences of the potential pass-through of regulatory 
costs to consumers of intermediate and final products for which coke is 
an input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Economic Impact Analysis for the Final National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Oven Batteries, Technology Review (EPA-452/R-23-005). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to emissions reductions, this rule has no quantifiable 
emission reductions. At this time, since these impacts are uncertain 
and not quantifiable, the EPA is unable to assess the total costs, 
benefits, and distributional consequences of these actions at the 
community level.
    For more information on the potential benefits of this rulemaking, 
see section V.E. of this preamble. For additional discussion on the 
environmental justice analyses conducted and their results, see section 
V.F.

E. What are the benefits?

    The promulgated amendments revise the standards such that they 
apply at all times, which includes periods of SSM, and may result in 
some unquantified additional emissions reductions (and associated 
potential public health benefits) compared to historic or current 
emissions (i.e., before the SSM exemptions were removed). Additional 
elements of the promulgated amendments, including MACT standards for 
previously unregulated HAP emissions, lower ByP coke oven emission leak 
limits, ensuring zero HNR door leaks, and HNR B/W stack opacity limits 
also may result in unquantified additional emissions reductions (and 
associated potential public health benefits) that improve 
accountability and compliance assurance. Also, the promulgated 
fenceline monitoring will improve compliance assurance and potentially 
result in some unquantified additional emission reductions (and 
associated public health benefits).
    The EPA has not quantified any benefits associated with this final 
rule because all covered facilities are expected to already have HAP 
emissions levels that are below the final limits, based on facility 
data available to the EPA. However, the EPA anticipates that this final 
rule's new requirements will increase the likelihood of facilities 
successfully detecting any HAP emissions in excess of the specified 
thresholds, allowing for earlier corrective action and thus preventing 
pollution increases that could otherwise occur. The potential public 
health benefits associated with such prevention are difficult to 
estimate, given that they correspond to hypothetical scenarios of 
emissions beyond those indicated by current facility data, and are thus 
not quantified in EPA's analysis.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon 
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice 
in Regulatory Analysis,'' \81\ which provides recommendations that 
encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, 
recognizing that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and 
analytical challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The 
Technical Guidance \82\ states that a regulatory action may involve 
potential environmental justice concerns if it could: (1) create new 
disproportionate impacts on communities with environmental justice 
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on 
communities with environmental justice concerns; or (3) present 
opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on 
communities with environmental justice concerns through this action 
under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 
2016. Quote is from Section 3--Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
    \82\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 
2016. Quote is from Section 3--Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's environmental justice Technical Guidance \83\ states that 
``[t]he analysis of potential environmental justice concerns for 
regulatory actions should address three questions: (A) Are there 
potential environmental justice concerns associated with environmental 
stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of 
concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential environmental justice 
concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the 
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory 
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under 
consideration, are potential environmental justice concerns created or 
mitigated compared to the baseline?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 
2016. Quote is from Section 3--Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of 
providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the 
potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of 
such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this 
action under CAA sections 112, which are based solely on the statutory 
factors the EPA is required to consider.
1. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category 
Demographics
    The EPA examined the potential for the 12 coke oven facilities to 
disproportionately impact residents in certain demographic groups 
living in proximity to the facilities. Specifically, the EPA analyzed 
how demographics and risk are distributed under the PQBS NESHAP. The 
methodology and detailed results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities--Final,\84\ which is 
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Coke Oven Facilities--Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine the potential for disproportionate impacts on certain 
population groups, the EPA conducted a proximity demographic analysis 
and a risk-based demographic analysis. A proximity demographic analysis 
is an assessment of individual demographic groups in the total 
population living within 10 km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of 
the affected facilities. A risk-based demographic analysis is an 
assessment of risks to individual demographic groups in the population 
living within 10 km and 50 km of the facilities. In this preamble, we 
focus on the 10 km radius for the demographic analysis because it 
encompasses all the facility MIR locations and captures 99 percent of 
the population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 
million from coke ovens PQBS source category emissions. The results of 
the proximity analysis for populations living within 50 km are included 
in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Coke Oven Facilities--Final,\85\ which is available in the 
docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Coke Oven Facilities--Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total population, population percentages, and population count 
for each demographic group for the entire U.S. population is shown in 
the column titled ``Nationwide Average for Reference'' in table 11 of 
this preamble.

[[Page 55725]]

These national data are provided as a frame of reference to compare to 
the results of the proximity analysis and the risk-based analysis.
    The results of the category proximity demographic analysis (see 
table 11, column titled ``Proximity Analysis for Pop. Living within 10 
km of Coke Oven Facilities'') indicate that a total of 1.3 million 
people live within 10 km of the 12 coke oven facilities. The percent of 
the population that is African American is more than double the 
national average (28 percent versus 12 percent). The percent of people 
living below the poverty level is almost double the national average 
(21 percent versus 13 percent) and the percent of people living below 
twice the poverty level is above the national average (41 percent 
versus 30 percent).
    The PQBS source category risk-based demographic analysis (see table 
11 in this preamble), which focuses on populations that have higher 
cancer risks, indicates that there are approximately 2,500 people with 
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million living around two 
PQBS facilities, one in Pennsylvania and one in Virginia. Over 99 
percent of the population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million are living around the Virginia facility; therefore, the 
demographics for the population living around this facility dominates 
the risk-based demographics. The population with cancer risks greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to emissions from the PQBS source 
category is predominantly white (83 percent versus 60 percent 
nationally).\86\ The population with cancer risks greater than or equal 
to 1-in-1 million for emissions from the PQBS source category also are 
above the national average for: (1) the percent of the population 
living below poverty (15 percent versus 13 percent); (2) the percent of 
the population living below twice the poverty level (34 percent versus 
30 percent); and (3) the percent of the population that is over 25 
without a high school diploma (23 percent versus 12 percent). Note that 
no reduction in actual emissions or risk is expected for the PQBS 
source category as a result of these final actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Note, since there are fewer than 100 people with a 
noncancer hazard index greater than or equal to 1 living around one 
facility, we did not conduct risk-based demographics for noncancer.

    Table 11--Source Category: Demographics of Populations Living Within 10 km of Facilities With Cancer Risk
  Greater Than or Equal to 1-in-1 Million From Emissions From the PQBS Source Category Compared to the National
                                       Average and Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Proximity       Cancer risk
                                                                                  analysis for       >=1-in-1
                                                                  Nationwide       population     million within
                      Demographic group                          average for      living within    10 km of coke
                                                                  reference       10 km of coke        oven
                                                                                 oven facilities    facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.............................................             330M              1.3M            2.5K
Number of Facilities.........................................  ...............                12               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................................................              60%               58%             83%
                                                                          196M              737K              2K
African American.............................................              12%               28%             10%
                                                                           40M              359K             300
Native American..............................................             0.6%              0.2%              0%
                                                                            2M                3K               0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).............              19%               10%              2%
                                                                           63M              133K            <100
Other and Multiracial........................................               9%                4%              5%
                                                                           29M               47K             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Income by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level..........................................              13%               21%             15%
                                                                           42M              267K             400
Below 2x Poverty Level.......................................              30%               41%             34%
                                                                          100M              524K             900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Education by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................              12%               12%             23%
                                                                           38M              152K             600
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................              88%               88%             77%
                                                                          292M              1.1M              2K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................               5%                3%              2%

[[Page 55726]]

 
                                                                           17M               33K            <100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2016-2020
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial Census
  block populations. To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct
  demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above:
  White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies
  as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person
  also may have identified as in the Census.

2. Coke Oven Whole-Facility Demographics
    As described in section IV.B.5. of this preamble, we assessed the 
facility-wide (or ``whole-facility'') risks for 12 coke oven facilities 
in order to compare the PQBS NESHAP source category risk to the whole 
facility risks. This whole-facility demographic analysis characterizes 
the risks communities face from all HAP sources at coke oven 
facilities. The whole facility risk assessment includes all sources of 
HAP emissions at each facility (described in the memorandum HAP 
Emissions from Coke Oven Facilities--Final Rule \87\). Note, no 
reduction in actual emissions or risk is expected at the whole facility 
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ HAP Emissions from Coke Oven Facilities--Final Rule. D.L. 
Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and G.E. Raymond and E. 
Kerr, RTI International. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1, 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The whole-facility demographic analysis is an assessment of 
individual demographic groups in the total population living within 10 
km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. In this 
preamble, we focus on the 10 km radius for the demographic analysis 
because it encompasses all the facility MIR locations and captures 99 
percent of the population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million from the PQBS NESHAP source category emissions. The 
results of the whole-facility demographic analysis for populations 
living within 50 km are included in the document titled Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities--
Final,\88\ which is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Coke Oven Facilities--Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the source category population with risks >= 1-in-1 million 
(shown in table 11 of this preamble) is disproportionately White (83 
percent living within 10 km of coke oven facilities v. 60 percent 
nationally), the whole-facility population with risks >= 1-in-1 million 
(shown in table 12 of this section) is disproportionately African 
American (30 percent living within 10 km of coke oven facilities v. 12 
percent nationally). Specifically, the whole-facility population with 
risk greater than 1-in-1 million is 30 percent African American 
compared to the national average of 12 percent. In addition, the 
percentage of the whole-facility population living within 10 km of coke 
oven facilities with cancer risks >= 1-in1 million that is living below 
the poverty level (17 percent) and also the population living below two 
times the poverty level (36 percent) are above the corresponding 
national average (13 percent and 30 percent).

Table 12--Whole-Facility: Demographics of Populations Living Within 10 km of Facilities With Cancer Risk Greater
  Than or Equal to 1-in-1 Million From Coke Oven Whole-Facility Emissions Compared to the National Average and
                                             Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Proximity      Cancer risk
                                                                                   analysis for      >=1-in-1
                                                                    Nationwide      pop. living   million within
                        Demographic group                           average for    within 10 km    10 km of coke
                                                                     reference     of coke oven        oven
                                                                                    facilities      facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................            330M            1.3M            491K
Number of Facilities............................................  ..............              12               7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             58%             62%
                                                                            196M            737K            303K
African American................................................             12%             28%             30%
                                                                             40M            359K            149K
Native American.................................................            0.6%            0.2%            0.1%
                                                                              2M              3K             500
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             10%              4%
                                                                             63M            133K             21K
Other and Multiracial...........................................              9%              4%              3%

[[Page 55727]]

 
                                                                             29M             47K             17K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Income by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             21%             17%
                                                                             42M            267K             84K
Below 2x Poverty Level..........................................             30%             41%             36%
                                                                            100M            524K            176K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Education by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             12%              8%
                                                                             38M            152K             40K
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             88%             92%
                                                                            292M            1.1M            451K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              3%              1%
                                                                             17M             33K              6K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2016-2020
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial Census
  block populations. To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct
  demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above:
  White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies
  as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA 
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by 
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's 
assessment of the potential impacts to human health from emissions at 
existing coke ovens sources in the PQBS source category are discussed 
in section IV.B. and IV.C. of this preamble.
    A total of 281,000 children ages 0-17 live within 10 km of Coke 
Oven facilities, which is 22 percent of the total population within 10 
km of Coke Ovens. This percentage is the same as the national 
percentage for children ages 0-17 (22 percent). Due to emissions from 
the PQBS source category, there are approximately 200 children (0-17 
years) with increased lifetime cancer risks of greater than or equal to 
1-in-1 million. This represents 8 percent of the total population 
living of 2,500 people within 10 km of coke ovens that have an 
increased lifetime cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million 
due to PQBS emissions (see Table 11). Therefore, the number of children 
ages 0-17 living near these facilities is not disproportionately high.
    Children breathe more air per unit of body weight than adults and 
are more susceptible to the impacts of mutagenic carcinogens and 
neurodevelopmental toxicants, both of which are found in COE. Because 
this action sets MACT standards for Hg, which is a known 
neurodevelopmental toxicant and was previously unregulated for this 
source category, and because the rule includes lower leak limits for 
coke ovens to minimize fugitive releases of COE, the final standards 
will prevent, and possibly reduce, the exposure of children to both 
cancer and noncancer health effects. In addition, the fenceline 
monitoring work practice required in the final rule, where benzene is 
used as a surrogate for COE, also may prevent and possibly reduce 
exposure of children to mutagenic carcinogens and neurodevelopmental 
toxicants.
    The methodology and detailed results of the demographic analysis 
are presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors 
for Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities--Final,\89\ available 
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Coke Oven Facilities--Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. 
Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any 
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is 
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential 
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, Economic 
Impact Analysis for the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, 
Residual Risk and Technology Review; National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke

[[Page 55728]]

Oven Batteries Technology Review,\90\ is available in the dockets EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Economic Impact Analysis for the Final National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Oven Batteries, Technology Review (EPA-452/R-23-005). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this promulgated rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR documents 
that the EPA prepared have been assigned EPA ICR numbers 1995.10 and 
1362.15. You can find a copy of the ICRs in the dockets for this rule, 
and they are briefly summarized here.
    We are promulgating amendments to the PQBS NESHAP that require 
compliance testing for 17 MACT limits and to the COB NESHAP that 
require fenceline monitoring. Furthermore, the amendments also require 
electronic reporting and remove the SSM exemptions in both NESHAP. We 
are also incorporating other revisions (e.g., facility counts) that 
affect reporting and recordkeeping for coke oven facilities. This 
information would be collected to assure compliance with the CAA.
    For ICR: NESHAP for PQBS (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) (OMB 
Control Number 2060-0521)
    Respondents/affected entities: PQBS source category.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart CCCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 12 facilities.
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: 26,800 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,490,000 (per year), which includes 
$107,000 annualized capital, or operation and maintenance costs. Of the 
total cost, $950,000 (per year) is for this promulgation, and 
$2,433,000 is for other costs related to continued compliance with the 
NESHAP and the operation and maintenance of leak detectors and 
continuous opacity monitors. The total rule costs reflect an overall 
increase of $540,000 (per year) from the previous ICR due to the 
compliance with 17 additional MACT floor emission limits, transition to 
electronic reporting, and elimination of SSM requirements.
    For ICR: NESHAP for COB (40 CFR part 63, subpart L) (OMB Control 
Number 2060-0253)
    Respondents/affected entities: COB source category.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart L).
    Estimated number of respondents: 12 facilities.
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP is estimated to be 2,800 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $6,650,000 (per year), which includes $0 
annualized capital, or operations and maintenance costs. Of the total 
cost, $270,000 (per year) is for this promulgation and $6,380,000 is 
for other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAP. The 
total rule costs reflect a decrease of $230,000 (per year) from the 
previous ICR, due to revised HNR facility counts, transition to 
electronic reporting, addition of fenceline monitoring, and elimination 
of SSM requirements.
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Small 
entities that may be impacted by this rulemaking include Coke 
facilities located within an integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
facility under NAICS 331110 (Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy 
Manufacturing) with 1500 or fewer employees, or facilities under NAICS 
324199 (All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, with 500 
or fewer workers. None of the facilities currently in operation that 
are potentially affected by this rulemaking promulgation under these 
size definitions are ``small businesses'' and therefore will not have a 
significant economic impact. Additional details of the analysis can be 
found in the EIA \91\ prepared for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Economic Impact Analysis for the Final National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Oven Batteries, Technology Review (EPA-452/R-23-005). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. May 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It 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 facilities subject to these NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action.

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

    Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an 
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation 
on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the 
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or 
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 
to children. This action's health and risk assessments for PQBS source 
category are contained in section IV. of this preamble and further 
documented in The Residual Risk Assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stack Source Category in Support of the 2024 
Risk and Technology Review Final

[[Page 55729]]

Rule,\92\ available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category in Support of the 2024 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. May 2024. Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's Policy on Children's Health \93\ applies to this action. 
Although we did not perform a risk assessment of the COB source 
category in this action, we note that COE, which is primarily emitted 
from this source category, has a mutagenic mode of action; therefore, 
changes to the standards for the COB NESHAP under the technology review 
could reduce the exposure of children to mutagens. In addition, this 
action sets MACT standards for Hg, which is a known neurodevelopmental 
toxicant and was previously unregulated for this source category; 
therefore, the new Hg standards will provide additional protection for 
the exposure of children to noncancer impacts as well. Additional 
information on how the Policy was applied is available under 
``Children's Environmental Health'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-policy-and-plan#A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded this action is not 
likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the RTR for the PQBS NESHAP and the NESHAP for 
COB through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database 
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also 
contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases. For COB NESHAP, we conducted 
searches for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 18, 22 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, EPA Methods 303, 303A of 40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 
5D, 22, 303, and 303A. For PQBS NESHAP, searches were conducted for EPA 
Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 23, 26, 26A, 29 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, EPA Methods 316 and 320 40 CFR part 63, appendix 
A. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, and 
316.
    During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) 
of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that 
are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a 
potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to 
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review 
requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements 
of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 
engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference 
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when 
additional information is available for a particular VCS.
    The EPA incorporates by reference, for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
CCCCC, the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' a method for quantitatively determining the gaseous 
constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion and 
includes a description of the apparatus, and calculations which are 
used in conjunction with Performance Test Codes to determine 
quantitatively, as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B of 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 for the manual procedures only and not the 
instrumental procedures. The manual method segment of the oxygen 
determination is performed through the absorption of oxygen. This VCS 
may be obtained from https://webstore.ansi.org/or from the ANSI 
Headquarters at 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036.
    The EPA previously received approval to incorporate this method in 
Sec.  63.309 (subpart L), where it appears in the amendatory text of 
this rule.
    The EPA promulgates to incorporate by reference, for 40 CFR part 
63, subparts CCCCC and L, the VCS ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method 
for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 
Atmosphere'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the 
following caveats:
     During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you 
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various 
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated 
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds 
and/or a sparse tree stand).
     You must also have standard operating procedures in place 
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the 
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in section 
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
     You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in 
40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data 
sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification 
determination.
     You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) 
independent technology users apply the software to determine the 
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.

This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation 
of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify 
the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and 
operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and this letter is on the 
facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    The ASTM D7520-16 method describes procedures to determine the 
opacity of a plume, using digital imagery and associated hardware and 
software, where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a stationary point 
source in the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity of emissions is 
determined by the application of a DCOT that consists of a digital 
still camera, analysis software, and the output function's content to 
obtain and interpret digital images to determine and report plume 
opacity.
    The EPA promulgates to incorporate by reference for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart L, the VCS ASTM D6420-18, ``Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass 
Spectrometry'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18 only when 
the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all 
listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. This method should not be used for 
methane and ethane because atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM D6420 
should never be specified as a total VOC method. This test method 
employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to 
identify and quantify 36 volatile organic compounds, however, the use 
of the method in this rule is only applicable to benzene, toluene, and 
xylene.

[[Page 55730]]

    The EPA promulgates to incorporate by reference, for 40 CFR part 
63, subpart CCCCC, the VCS ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test Method for 
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated 
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 3 Method)'' is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for Hg only) as a 
method for measuring Hg. This method applies to concentrations of 
approximately 0.5-100 mg/Nm\3\. This test method describes equipment 
and procedures for obtaining samples from effluent ducts and stacks, 
equipment and procedures for laboratory analysis, and procedures for 
calculating results.
    The EPA promulgates to incorporate by reference, for 40 CFR part 
63, subpart CCCCC, the VCS ASTM D6348-12 (2020), ``Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 
of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats requiring inclusion of 
selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. The ASTM D6348-12 (2020) 
method is an extractive FTIR spectroscopy-based field test method and 
is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target 
compounds in emission streams from stationary sources. This field test 
method provides near real time analysis of extracted gas samples. In 
the September 22, 2008, NTTAA summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was 
determined equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12 
(2020) is a revised version of ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new 
section on accepting the results from direct measurement of a certified 
spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the caveats we placed on the D6348-
03(2010) version. We are finalizing that the test plan preparation and 
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-12 (2020), annexes Al 
through A8 are mandatory; and in ASTM D6348-12 (2020) Annex A5 (Analyte 
Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each 
target analyte (Equation A5.5). We are finalizing that, in order for 
the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% > R <= 
130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target 
compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the 
test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or 
analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value 
for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field 
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that 
compound by using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.002

    The ASTM methods are available at ASTM International at 
www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number: (610) 832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 at 
[email protected].
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be 
found in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Coke 
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks: National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Voluntary Consensus Standard 
Results for Coke Oven Batteries: National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven Batteries, available in the EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0085, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 dockets for the promulgated 
rule.
    The EPA is also incorporating by reference, for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart L, the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 
Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), 
March 2008 (EPA-454/B-08-002). The Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 
Pollution Measurement Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements 
is an EPA developed guidance manual for the installation, operation, 
maintenance and calibration of meteorological systems including the 
wind speed and direction using anemometers, temperature using 
thermistors, and atmospheric pressure using aneroid barometers, as well 
as the calculations for wind vector data for on-site meteorological 
measurements. This VCS may be obtained from the EPA's National Service 
Center for Environmental Publications (https://www.epa.gov/nscep).

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.
    As discussed in section V.F. of this preamble, the population with 
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to emissions from all 
sources of HAP at coke oven facilities is disproportionately (30 
percent) African American compared to the national average (12 percent 
African American). About 83 percent of the 491,000 people with a cancer 
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million live within 10 km of 3 
facilities--two in Alabama and one in Pennsylvania. The population with 
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million living within 10 
km of the two facilities in Alabama is 56 percent African American, 
which is significantly higher than the national average of 12 percent. 
In addition, the population with risks >= 1-in-1 million due to 
emissions from all sources of HAP at coke oven facilities that is below 
the poverty level (17 percent) is above the national average (13 
percent).
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to change existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. Although the promulgated measures are not estimated 
to decrease actual emissions or the number of people who have risks 
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions (see table 
12 of this preamble), this action will limit allowable emissions from 
coke ovens sources in 40 CFR part 63, subparts CCCCC and L. The EPA 
also is promulgating that coke oven facilities conduct fenceline 
monitoring for benzene and report these data electronically to the EPA. 
The fenceline monitoring requirements will help ensure that emissions 
from sources listed under CAA section 112 are being appropriately 
controlled. The fenceline monitoring results will be publicly available 
on a quarterly basis to ensure transparency and, consequently, provide 
fenceline communities with greater access to information about 
potential exposures.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is described 
in section V.F. of this preamble and in the document Analysis of 
Demographic

[[Page 55731]]

Factors for Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities--Final \94\ 
located in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Coke Oven Facilities--Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 2024. Docket ID Nos. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (i)(88), 
(96), (105), and (110), the introductory text of paragraph (o), and 
paragraph (o)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981; IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k); 63.365(b); 63.457(k); 63.772(e) and (h); 
63.865(b); 63.997(e); 63.1282(d) and (g); 63.1450(a), (b), (d), (e), 
and (g); 63.1625(b); table 5 to subpart EEEE; Sec. Sec.  63.3166(a); 
63.3360(e); 63.3545(a); 63.3555(a); 63.4166(a); 63.4362(a); 63.4766(a); 
63.4965(a); 63.5160(d); table 4 to subpart UUUU; table 3 to subpart 
YYYY; table 4 to subpart AAAAA; Sec.  63.7322(b); table 5 to subpart 
DDDDD; Sec. Sec.  63.7822(b); 63.7824(e); 63.7825(b); 63.8000(d); table 
4 to subpart JJJJJ; table 4 to subpart KKKKK; Sec. Sec.  63.9307(c); 
63.9323(a); 63.9621(b) and (c);table 4 to subpart SSSSS; tables 4 and 5 
of subpart UUUUU; table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ; Sec. Sec.  63.11148(e); 
63.11155(e); 63.11162(f); 63.11163(g); table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ; 
Sec. Sec.  63.11410(j); 63.11551(a); 63.11646(a); 63.11945.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (88) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 
2012; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.365(b); 63.7322(d), (e), and (g); 
63.7825(g) and (h).
* * * * *
    (96) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry, approved November 1, 2018, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.305(c); 63.987(b); 63.997(e); 63.2354(b); table 5 to subpart EEEE; 
Sec. Sec.  63.2450(j); 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
    (105) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1450(d); 63.9621; table 5 to subpart UUUUU; 
appendix A to subpart UUUUU; Sec.  63.7322(c).
* * * * *
    (110) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 
2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.301; 63.305(c) and (f); 63.309(d), 
(j), and (m); 63.311(d); 63.1450(c) (e), and (g); 63.1453(h); 
63.1625(b); 63.7334(a); Sec. Sec.  63.7823(c) through (f), 63.7833(g); 
table 3 to subpart LLLLL; Sec.  63.11423(c).
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (3) EPA-454/B-08-002, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution 
Measurement Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 
2.0 (Final), March 2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.314(b); 
63.7792(b).
* * * * *

0
3. Effective July 15, 2024, Sec.  63.14 is amended by revising 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (i)(89) and (96) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981; Sec. Sec.  
63.116(c) and (h); 63.128(a); 63.145(i); 63.309(k); 63.365(b); 
63.457(k); 63.490(g); 63.772(e) and (h); 63.865(b); 63.997(e); 
63.1282(d) and (g); 63.1450(a), (b), (d). (e), (g); 63.1625(b); table 5 
to subpart EEEE; Sec. Sec.  63.3166(a); 63.3360(e); 63.3545(a); 
63.3555(a); 63.4166(a); 63.4362(a); 63.4766(a); 63.4965(a); 63.5160(d); 
table 4 to subpart UUUU; table 3 to subpart YYYY; table 4 to subpart 
AAAAA; Sec.  63.7322(b); table 5 to subpart DDDDD; Sec. Sec.  
63.7822(b); 63.7824(e); 63.7825(b); 63.8000(d); table 4 to subpart 
JJJJJ; table 4 to subpart KKKKK; Sec. Sec.  63.9307(c); 63.9323(a); 
63.9621(b) and (c);table 4 to subpart SSSSS; tables 4 and 5 of subpart 
UUUUU; table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ; Sec. Sec.  63.11148(e); 63.11155(e); 
63.11162(f); 63.11163(g); table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ; Sec. Sec.  
63.11410(j); 63.11551(a); 63.11646(a); 63.11945.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (89) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 
2012; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.109(a); 63.365(b); 63.509(a); 
63.7322(d), (e), and (g); 63.7825(g) and (h).
* * * * *
    (96) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry, approved November 1, 2018' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.101(b); 63.115(g); 63.116(c); 63.126(d); 63.128(a); 63.139(c); 
63.145(d) and (i); 63.150(g); 63.180(d; 63.305(c); 63.482(b); 
63.485(t); 63.488(b); 63.490(c) and (e); 63.496(b); 63.500(c); 
63.501(a); 63.502(j); 63.503(a) and (g); 63.525(a) and (e); 63.987(b); 
63.997(e); 63.2354(b); table 5 to subpart EEEE; Sec. Sec.  63.2450(j); 
63.8000(d).
* * * * *

Subpart L--National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries

0
4. Section 63.300 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.300  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) The provisions for new sources in Sec. Sec.  63.302(b) and (c) 
and 63.303(b) apply to each greenfield coke oven battery and to each 
new or reconstructed coke oven battery at an existing coke plant if the 
changes to or addition of a coke oven battery results in an increase in 
the design capacity of the coke plant as of

[[Page 55732]]

November 15, 1990, (including any capacity qualifying under Sec.  
63.304(b)(6), and the capacity of any coke oven battery subject to a 
construction permit on November 15, 1990, which commenced operation 
before October 27, 1993.
* * * * *
    (e) The emission limitations set forth in this subpart shall apply 
at all times. At all times, the owner or operator must operate and 
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.301 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a definition in alphabetical order for ``Bypass stack'';
0
b. Revising the definitions for ``By-product coke oven battery'' and 
``Certified observer'';
0
c. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``Corrective action'', 
``Day'', ``Fenceline'', ``Heat and/or nonrecovery coke oven battery'', 
``Heat recovery steam generator'', ``Heat recovery steam generator 
bypass/waste heat stack'', ``Heat recovery steam generator main 
stack'';
0
d. Revising the definition for ``Nonrecovery coke oven battery'';
0
e. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``Not tall oven 
battery'';
0
f. Revising the definition for ``Pushing'';
0
g. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``Pushing/charging 
machine (PCM)'' and ``Root cause analysis'';
0
h. Revising the definition for ``Short coke oven battery''; and
0
i. Adding a definition in alphabetical order for ``Waste heat stack''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bypass stack at a heat recovery facility means a stack through 
which emissions are discharged from a common tunnel that collects gases 
from a coke oven battery. and where the emissions are not passed 
through a heat recovery unit. Common tunnels typically are equipped 
with afterburners to further reduce organic emissions in the coke oven 
gas.
    By-product coke oven battery means a source consisting of a group 
of ovens connected by common walls, where coal undergoes destructive 
distillation under positive pressure to produce coke and coke oven gas, 
from which by-products are recovered.
    Certified observer means a visual emission observer, certified 
under (if applicable) Method 303 and Method 9 or ASTM D7520-16 (if 
applicable; see Sec.  63.14 for availability) and employed by the 
Administrator, which includes a delegated enforcement agency or its 
designated agent. For the purpose of notifying an owner or operator of 
the results obtained by a certified observer, the person does not have 
to be certified.
* * * * *
    Corrective action means the design, operation and maintenance 
changes that one takes consistent with good engineering practice to 
reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the recurrence of the primary 
cause and any other contributing cause(s) of an event identified by a 
root cause analysis as having resulted in a discharge of gases from an 
affected facility in excess of specified thresholds.
    Day for monitoring purposes means any operation of the unit of more 
than three hours total for any time in the 24-hour period between 12:00 
a.m. on one calendar day and 12:00 a.m. on the next calendar day.
* * * * *
    Fenceline is a location on the border of the coke oven 
manufacturing facility property.
* * * * *
    Heat and/or nonrecovery coke oven battery means a group of ovens, 
connected by common side walls, in which coal undergoes destructive 
distillation under negative pressure to produce coke and coke oven gas 
and from which by-products are not recovered. The common tunnels 
typically contain afterburners to further reduce organic emissions in 
the coke oven gas. For nonrecovery plants (i.e., no chemical recovery) 
with heat recovery, the oven gases are vented through common tunnels to 
a heat recovery steam generator that produces steam. Heat recovery coke 
oven batteries may release oven gases through common tunnels and then 
into the atmosphere through bypass stacks when the heat recovery steam 
generators are not available due to maintenance or repair. For 
nonrecovery coke oven batteries (i.e., no chemical recovery) without 
heat recovery, oven gases are vented through common tunnels and then 
released to the atmosphere through waste heat stacks.
    Heat recovery steam generator is a process unit that recovers heat 
from coke oven gas in order to produce steam. Units typically are 
equipped with desulfurization units and baghouses to remove pollutants 
from the exhaust gases.
    Heat recovery steam generator bypass/waste heat stack means a stack 
that allows coke oven gas to be vented from the coke oven batteries 
through common tunnels and into the atmosphere when there are no heat 
recovery steam generator units available for heat recovery. Common 
tunnels typically are equipped with afterburners to further reduce 
organic emissions in the coke oven gas.
    Heat recovery steam generator main stack means the stack that is 
the point of final discharge to the atmosphere of the gases emanating 
from a heat recovery steam generator and its control devices, which 
typically are desulfurization units and baghouses.
* * * * *
    Nonrecovery coke oven battery means a source consisting of a group 
of ovens connected by common walls, where coal undergoes destructive 
distillation under negative pressure to produce coke, and which is 
designed for the combustion of the coke oven gas from which by-products 
are not recovered. Also known as a heat and/or nonrecovery battery. 
Nonrecovery coke oven battery refers to units from which heat is 
recovered from the coke oven gas exhaust as well as units where heat is 
not recovered. Both heat and/or nonrecovery batteries are connected by 
common tunnels that typically include afterburners to further reduce 
organic emissions in the coke oven gas.
    Not tall oven battery means a coke oven battery with ovens less 
than 6 meters (20 feet) in height.
* * * * *
    Pushing, for the purposes of Sec.  63.305, means the coke oven 
operation that commences when the pushing ram starts into the oven to 
push out coke that has completed the coking cycle and ends when the 
quench car is clear of the coke side shed.
    Pushing/charging machine (PCM) means the combined coke oven pushing 
and charging machine operated on rail tracks to open an oven door, push 
the finished coke from the open oven, and

[[Page 55733]]

close the oven door, and to charge the adjacent oven with coal to start 
the coking cycle. Typically used with horizontal ovens such as those at 
nonrecovery coke facilities.
    Root cause analysis is an assessment conducted through a process of 
investigation to determine the primary underlying cause and all other 
contributing causes to an exceedance of an action level set forth in 
this rule.
* * * * *
    Short coke oven battery means a coke oven battery with ovens less 
than 6 meters (20 feet) in height. Also called a ``not tall'' oven 
battery.
* * * * *
    Waste heat stack at a heat and/or nonrecovery facility means a 
stack that allows coke oven gas to be vented from the coke oven 
batteries through common tunnels and into the atmosphere when there are 
no units available for heat recovery. Common tunnels typically contain 
afterburners to further reduce organic emissions in coke oven gas.

0
6. Section 63.302 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (d).
    The addition and revision read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (4) On and after July 7, 2025:
    (i) for facilities with coke production capacity more than or equal 
to 3 million tpy coke and as determined by the procedures in Sec.  
63.309(d)(1), 2.5 percent leaking coke oven doors for each tall by-
product coke oven battery and 1.7 percent leaking coke oven doors for 
each not tall by-product coke oven battery;
    (ii) for facilities with coke production capacity less than 3 
million tpy coke and as determined by the procedures in Sec.  
63.309(d)(1), 3.8 percent leaking coke oven doors for each tall by-
product coke oven battery and 3.2 percent leaking coke oven doors for 
each not tall by-product coke oven battery;
    (iii) 0.32 percent leaking topside port lids, as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1);
    (iv) 2.1 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).
* * * * *
    (d) Emission limitations and requirements applied to each coke oven 
battery utilizing a new recovery technology shall be less than the 
following emission limitations or shall result in an overall annual 
emissions rate for coke oven emissions for the battery that is lower 
than that obtained by the following emission limitations on and after 
July 7, 2025:
    (1) Coke oven doors on by-product coke oven batteries at facilities 
with production capacity more than or equal to 3 million tpy coke:
    (i) 2.5 percent leaking coke oven doors on tall by-product coke 
oven batteries, as defined in Sec.  63.301 and as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1); and
    (ii) 1.7 percent leaking coke oven doors for each not tall by-
product coke oven battery, as determined by the procedures in Sec.  
63.309(d)(1);
    (2) For coke oven doors on by-product coke oven batteries at 
facilities with coke production capacity less than 3 million tpy coke:
    (i) 3.8 percent leaking coke oven doors on tall by-product coke 
oven batteries, as determined by the procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1); 
and
    (ii) 3.2 percent leaking coke oven doors on not tall by-product 
coke oven batteries, as determined by the procedures in Sec.  
63.309(d)(1);
    (3) 2.1 percent leaking offtake system(s), as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1);
    (4) 0.32 percent leaking topside port lids, as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1); and
    (5) 12 seconds of visible emissions per charge, as determined by 
the procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(2).

0
7. Section 63.303 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and 
(c) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.303  Standards for nonrecovery coke oven batteries.

    (a) * * *
    (1) For coke oven doors and common tunnels;
    (i) 0.0 percent leaking coke oven doors, as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1); and
    (ii) The owner or operator shall monitor and record, once per day 
for each day of operation, the pressure in each oven or in each common 
battery tunnel during pushing, charging, and coking to ensure that the 
ovens are operated under a negative pressure.
    (iii) The date for compliance with (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section is on and after July 7, 2025.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For coke oven doors and common tunnels;
    (i) 0.0 percent leaking coke oven doors, as determined by the 
procedures in Sec.  63.309(d)(1); and
    (ii) The owner or operator shall monitor and record, once per day 
for each day of operation, the pressure in each oven or in each common 
battery tunnel during pushing, charging, and coking to ensure that the 
ovens are operated under a negative pressure.
    (iii) The date for compliance with (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section is on and after July 7, 2025, or upon initial startup, 
whichever is later.
* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in Sec.  63.304(a), (b), and (d), the owner 
or operator of any nonrecovery coke oven battery shall meet the work 
practice standards in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.304 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(6);
0
b. Designating the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (b)(6)(v) 
as (b)(7)
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(8).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.304  Standards for compliance date extension.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The owner or operator of a cold-idle coke oven battery that 
shut down prior to November 15, 1990, shall submit a written request to 
the Administrator to include the battery in the design capacity of a 
coke plant as of November 15, 1990. A copy of the request shall also be 
sent to Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The 
Administrator will review and approve or disapprove a request according 
to the following procedures:
    (i) Requests will be reviewed for completeness in the order 
received. A complete request shall include:
    (A) Battery identification;
    (B) Design information, including the design capacity and number 
and size of ovens; and
    (C) A brief description of the owner or operator's plans for the 
cold-idle battery, including a statement whether construction of a 
padup rebuild or a brownfield coke oven battery is contemplated.
    (ii) A complete request shall be approved if the design capacity of 
the battery and the design capacity of all previous approvals does not 
exceed the capacity limit in paragraph (b)(6)(i)(C) of this section.
    (iii) The total nationwide coke capacity of coke oven batteries 
that receive approval under paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall not 
exceed 2.7 million Mg/yr (3.0 million ton/yr).

[[Page 55734]]

    (iv) If a construction permit is required, an approval shall lapse 
if a construction permit is not issued within 3 years of the approval 
date, or if the construction permit lapses.
    (v) If a construction permit is not required, an approval will 
lapse if the battery is not restarted within 2 years of the approval 
date.
    (7) The owner or operator of a by-product coke oven battery with 
fewer than 30 ovens may elect to comply with an emission limitation of 
2 or fewer leaking coke oven doors, as determined by the procedures in 
Sec.  63.309(d)(4), as an alternative to the emission limitation for 
coke oven doors in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(3) (i) through (ii), 
(b)(4)(i), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of this section.
    (8) On and after July 7, 2025:
    (i) 2.5 percent leaking coke oven doors on 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) for facilities with production capacity greater than 
3 million tpy coke or 1.7 percent leaking coke oven doors for each not 
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) for facilities with production 
capacity greater than 3 million tpy coke; and
    (ii) 3.8 percent leaking coke oven doors on 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) for facilities with production capacity less than 3 
million tpy coke or 3.2 percent leaking coke oven doors for each not 
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) for facilities with production 
capacity less than 3 million tpy coke.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.305 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) and (f)(4).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.305  Alternative standards for coke oven doors equipped with 
sheds.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16, (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (A) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the owner or operator or 
the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds 
of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field 
use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a 
sparse tree stand).
    (B) The owner or operator must also have standard operating 
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks 
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as 
outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (C) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures 
outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance 
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 
certification determination.
    (D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of 
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the 
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (E) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Measure the total emission rate of benzene, toluene, and xylene 
exiting the control device using Method 18 in appendix A-6 to 40 CFR 
part 60 and the emission rate of benzene soluble organics entering the 
control device as described in the test plan submitted pursuant to 
paragraph (b) of this section. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM 
D6420-18, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 18 for benzene, toluene, and xylene; or
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) The opacity of emissions from the control device for the shed 
shall be monitored in accordance with the requirements of either 
paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, at the election of the 
owner or operator.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain a 
continuous opacity monitor, and record the output of the system, for 
the measurement of the opacity of emissions discharged from the 
emission control system per Sec. Sec.  63.300(e) and 63.8(d)(1) and 
(2).
    (A) Each continuous opacity monitoring system shall meet the 
requirements of Performance Specification 1 in appendix B to 40 CFR 
part 60; and
    (B) Each continuous opacity monitoring system shall be operated, 
calibrated, and maintained according to the procedures and requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 52; and
    (C) The owner or operator shall keep the written procedures 
required by Sec.  63.8(d)(1) and (2) on record for the life of the 
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon 
request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is 
revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) 
versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made 
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a 
period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of 
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.  
63.8(d)(2); or
    (ii) A certified observer shall monitor and record at least once 
each day during daylight hours, opacity observations for the control 
device for the shed using Method 9 in appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60. 
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (A) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the owner or operator or 
the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds 
of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field 
use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a 
sparse tree stand).
    (B) The owner or operator must also have standard operating 
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks 
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as 
outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (C) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures 
outlined

[[Page 55735]]

in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, 
data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 
certification determination.
    (D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of 
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the 
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (E) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text, (d)(1), (2), and (5), (g), (j)(1), (k) introductory text, (k)(1) 
introductory text, (k)(1)(iii), and (m) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.309  Performance tests and procedures.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided, a daily performance test shall be 
conducted each day, 7 days per week for each new and existing coke oven 
battery, the results of which shall be used in accordance with 
procedures specified in this subpart to determine compliance with each 
of the applicable visible emission limitations for coke oven doors, 
topside port lids, offtake systems, and charging operations in this 
subpart. If a facility pushes and charges only at night, then that 
facility must, at its option, change their schedule and charge during 
daylight hours or provide adequate lighting so that visible emission 
inspections can be made at night. ``Adequate lighting'' will be 
determined by the enforcement agency. The performance test should be 
based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on the 
entire range of normal operating conditions) of the affected source for 
the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of 
startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is 
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include 
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent 
the entire range of normal operations, including operational conditions 
for maximum emissions if such emissions are not expected during maximum 
production. You shall make available to the Administrator such records 
as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The 30-run rolling average of the percent leaking coke oven 
doors, topside port lids, and offtake systems on each coke oven 
battery, using the equations in sections 12.5, 12.6, and 12.7 of Method 
303 (or section 12 of Method 303A) in appendix A to this part;
    (2) For by-product coke oven battery charging operations, the 
logarithmic 30-day rolling average of the seconds of visible emissions 
per charge for each battery, using the equation in section 12.4 of 
Method 303 in appendix A to this part;
* * * * *
    (5) For an approved alternative emission limitation for coke oven 
doors according to Sec.  63.305, the weekly or monthly observation of 
the percent leaking coke oven doors using Method 303 in appendix A to 
this part, the percent opacity of visible emissions from the control 
device for the shed using Method 9 in appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 or 
ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), and visible 
emissions from the shed using Method 22 in appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 
60;
* * * * *
    (g) Compliance with the alternative standards for nonrecovery coke 
oven batteries in Sec.  63.303; shed inspection, maintenance 
requirements, and monitoring requirements for parameters affecting the 
shed exhaust or pushing/charging machine or equivalent device flow rate 
for batteries subject to alternative standards for coke oven doors 
under Sec.  63.305; work practice emission control plan requirements in 
Sec.  63.306; standards for bypass/bleeder stacks in Sec.  63.307; and 
standards for collecting mains in Sec.  63.308 is to be determined by 
the enforcement agency based on review of records and inspections.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (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 in appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 or ASTM D7520-16 (as 
applicable; incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), 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 in 
appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 or section 8.4 of ASTM D7520-16 (as 
applicable; incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), 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 in 
appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 or section 8.5 of ASTM D7520-16 (as 
applicable; incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), determine and 
record the highest 3-minute average opacity for each charge from the 
consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals.
* * * * *
    (k) The owner or operator of a new nonrecovery coke oven battery 
shall 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 paragraphs (a) and (k)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of PM according to the following 
test methods in appendices A-1 through A-3 to 40 CFR part 60
* * * * *
    (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 (but not instrumental procedures) for measuring the 
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas, 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
* * * * *
    (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 in appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 
60 or ASTM D7520-16 (as applicable; incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) for one 6-minute period.

0
11. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.310.


Sec.  63.310  [Removed and Reserved]

0
12. Section 63.311 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (b)(2) and (5).

[[Page 55736]]

0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (b)(2) and 
(3), and paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) as paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);
0
c. Revising and republishing paragraphs (d);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (e), (f) introductory text, (f)(1)(iv), and 
(f)(2)(ii)(A);
0
e. Removing paragraph (f)(6).
0
f. Adding a paragraph heading to paragraph (g);
0
g. Revising paragraph (g)(1); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (h) through (l).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.311  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Semiannual compliance certification. The owner or operator of a 
coke oven battery shall include the following information in the 
semiannual compliance certification:
    (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 work 
practices were implemented if applicable under Sec.  63.306.
    (3) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work 
practices for nonrecovery coke oven batteries were implemented as 
required in Sec.  63.303(b)(3).
    (4) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all coke 
oven door leaks on a nonrecovery 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)(4)(i) 
through (iv) 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), any actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
and Sec.  63.300(e), the corrective action taken to stop the leak.
    (iv) Whether the failure occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown or malfunction.
    (5) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that the 
opacity of emissions from charging operations for a new nonrecovery 
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
    (6) Before September 3, 2024, report the results of any PM 
performance test for a charging emissions control device for a new 
nonrecovery coke oven battery conducted during the reporting period as 
required in Sec.  63.309(l). Beginning on September 3, 2024, report PM 
performance test results according to paragraph (i) of this section.
    (7) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work 
practices for a charging emissions control device for a new nonrecovery 
coke oven battery were implemented as required in Sec.  63.303(d)(3). 
If a Method 9 in appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 or ASTM D7520-16 (as 
applicable; incorporation by reference, see Sec.  63.14) 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.
    (8) Certification, signed by the owner or operator, that all work 
practices for oven dampers on a new nonrecovery coke oven battery were 
implemented as required in Sec.  63.303(d)(4).
    (9) Facility name and address (including the county) and the 
beginning and ending date of the reporting period.
    (e) Report for the venting of coke oven gas other than through a 
flare system. The owner or operator shall report any venting of coke 
oven gas through a bypass/bleeder stack that was not vented through the 
bypass/bleeder stack flare system to the Administrator as soon as 
practicable but no later than 24 hours after the beginning of the 
event. A written or electronic report shall be submitted within 30 days 
of the event and shall include a description of the event and, if 
applicable, a copy of the notification for a hazardous substance 
release required pursuant to 40 CFR 302.6.
    (f) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator shall maintain files of 
all required information in a permanent form suitable for inspection at 
an onsite location for at least 1 year and must thereafter be 
accessible within 3 working days to the Administrator for the time 
period specified in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B). Copies of the work 
practice plan developed under Sec.  63.306 shall be kept onsite at all 
times. The owner or operator shall record the occurrence and duration 
of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of process, air pollution 
control, and monitoring equipment, and maintain the following 
information:
    (1) * * *
    (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 
to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner operation, 
and the amount of time taken to stop the leak from the time the leak 
was first observed. Beginning on January 2, 2025, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and whether 
the failure occurred during a period of startup, shutdown or 
malfunction. If you failed to meet an applicable standard, the 
compliance report must include the start date, start time, cause, and 
duration (in hours) of each failure. For each failure, beginning on 
January 2, 2025, the compliance report must include a list of the 
affected sources or equipment, actions taken to minimize emissions, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any 
emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Records of opacity readings from the continuous opacity monitor 
for the control device for the shed. Beginning on January 2, 2025, if 
you failed to meet an applicable standard, the compliance report must 
include whether the failure occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction of process, air pollution control, and 
monitoring equipment; the start date, start time, and duration (in 
hours) of each failure; and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. For each 
failure, beginning on January 2, 2025, the compliance report must 
include a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of the

[[Page 55737]]

method used to estimate the emissions; and
* * * * *
    (g) Record availability. * * *
    (1) Requests under paragraph (g) of this section shall be submitted 
in writing or electronically, and shall identify the records or reports 
that are subject to the request with reasonable specificity;
* * * * *
    (h) Electronic reporting of compliance certification reports. 
Beginning on July 7, 2025, or once the report template for this subpart 
has been available on the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI) website for one year, whichever date is later, submit 
all subsequent reports to the EPA via the CEDRI according to Sec.  
63.9(k) except that confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted according to paragraph (k) of this section.
    (i) Electronic Reporting of Performance Tests. Beginning on 
September 3, 2024, within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results 
of the performance test following the procedure specified in Sec.  
63.9(k) except that CBI should submitted be according to paragraph (k) 
of this section. Data collected using test methods supported by the 
EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT 
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test must be 
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or alternate 
electronic file. If a performance test consists only of opacity or EPA 
Method 303 measurements, reporting using the ERT and CEDRI is not 
required.
    (j) Fenceline monitoring reporting. For fenceline monitoring 
systems subject to Sec.  63.314 of this subpart, each owner or operator 
must submit fenceline monitoring reports on a quarterly basis using the 
appropriate electronic template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart 
and following the procedure specified in Sec.  63.9(k), except any 
medium submitted through mail must be sent to the attention of the Coke 
Ovens Sector Lead. The first quarterly report must cover the period 
beginning on the compliance date that is specified in Sec.  63.314(a) 
of this subpart and ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 or 
December 31, whichever date is the first date that occurs after the 
owner or operator has completed at least one sampling period. Each 
subsequent quarterly report must cover one of the following reporting 
periods: Quarter 1 from January 1 through March 31; Quarter 2 from 
April 1 through June 30; Quarter 3 from July 1 through September 30; 
and Quarter 4 from October 1 through December 31. Each quarterly report 
must be electronically submitted no later than 45 calendar days 
following the end of the reporting period.
    (1) Facility name and address (including the county).
    (2) Year and reporting quarter (i.e., Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter 
3, or Quarter 4).
    (3) For each passive tube monitor: The latitude and longitude 
location coordinates; the sampler name; and identification of the type 
of sampler (i.e., regular monitor, extra monitor, duplicate, field 
blank, inactive). Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least 
five decimal places.
    (4) The beginning and ending dates for each sampling period.
    (5) Individual sample results for benzene reported in units of 
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m\3\) for each monitor for each sampling 
period that ends during the reporting period. Results below the method 
detection limit shall be flagged as below the detection limit and 
reported at the method detection limit. Where individual sample results 
are corrected according to a site specific monitoring plan according to 
Sec.  63.314(f), both the original and the corrected results are 
reported.
    (6) Data flags that indicate each monitor that was skipped for the 
sampling period, if the owner or operator uses an alternative sampling 
frequency under Sec.  63.314(a)(2)(iii).
    (7) Data flags for each outlier determined in accordance with 
section 9.2 of Method 325A in appendix A to this part. For each 
outlier, the owner or operator must submit the individual sample result 
of the outlier, as well as the evidence used to conclude that the 
result is an outlier.
    (8) The biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c) for benzene 
for each sampling period and, beginning the first quarterly report with 
sufficient data to calculate an annual average, the annual average 
[Delta]c for benzene for each sampling period.
    (9) Indication of whether the owner or operator was required to 
develop a corrective action plan under Sec.  63.314(e) of this subpart.
    (k) Confidential business information (CBI). For notifications and 
reports required to be submitted to CEDRI:
    (1) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI 
available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI 
to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect 
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for 
some of the information submitted under paragraphs (h) or (i) of this 
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed 
to be CBI, to the EPA.
    (2) For performance test reports according to paragraph (j) of this 
section, the file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (3) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 
to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public 
release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    (4) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address 
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI 
markings. For performance test reports, the CBI should be flagged to 
the attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group; for all 
other reports and notifications, to the attention of the Coke Ovens 
Sector Lead. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic 
files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you 
do not have your own file sharing service, please email 
[email protected] to request a file transfer link.
    (5) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group or Coke Oven Sector 
Lead as indicated in paragraph (k)(4) of this section. The mailed CBI 
material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI

[[Page 55738]]

markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    (6) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (7) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with 
the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs 
(h), (i), or (j) of this section.
    (l) Fenceline monitoring recordkeeping. For fenceline monitoring 
systems subject to Sec.  63.314, each owner or operator shall keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (10) of this section on 
an ongoing basis.
    (1) Coordinates of all fenceline monitors, including co-located 
samplers and field blanks, and if applicable, the meteorological 
station. The owner or operator shall determine the coordinates using an 
instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. The coordinates shall 
be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
    (2) The start and stop times and dates for each sample, as well as 
the tube identifying information.
    (3) Sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure 
measurements.
    (4) For each outlier determined in accordance with Section 9.2 of 
Method 325A in appendix A to this part, the sampler location of and the 
concentration of the outlier and the evidence used to conclude that the 
result is an outlier.
    (5) For samples that will be adjusted for a background, the 
location of and the concentration measured simultaneously by the 
background sampler(s), and the perimeter samplers to which it applies.
    (6) Individual sample results, the calculated [Delta]c for benzene 
for each sampling period and the two samples used to determine it, 
whether background correction was used, and the annual average [Delta]c 
calculated after each sampling period.
    (7) Method detection limit for each sample, including co-located 
samples and blanks.
    (8) Documentation of the root cause analysis and any corrective 
action taken each time the action level was exceeded, including the 
dates the root cause analysis was initiated and the resulting 
correction action(s) were taken.
    (9) Any corrective action plan developed under Sec.  63.314(e).
    (10) Other records as required by Methods 325A and 325B in appendix 
A to this part.
    (11) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in Sec.  
63.314(f), or if an alternative test method is used that provides time-
resolved measurements, records of hourly meteorological data, including 
temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and wind direction, 
calculated daily unit vector wind direction and daily sigma theta, and 
other records specified in the site-specific monitoring plan.

0
13. Section 63.313 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.313  Implementation and enforcement.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

0
14. Add Sec.  63.314 to subpart L to read as follows:


Sec.  63.314  Fenceline monitoring provisions.

    For each by-product coke oven battery facility as defined in Sec.  
63.301 of this subpart, beginning no later than July 7, 2025, the owner 
or operator of a coke manufacturing facility shall conduct sampling 
along the facility property boundary and analyze the samples in 
accordance with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section.
    (a) The owner or operator must conduct sampling along the facility 
property boundary and analyze the samples in accordance with Methods 
325A and 325B in appendix A to this part and paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(2) of this section. The monitoring perimeter may be located within 
the facility, inside the facility property boundary. However, the 
monitoring perimeter must encompass all potential sources of benzene 
that are located within the facility's property boundary.
    (1) The target analyte is benzene. The owner or operator must 
follow the procedure in section 9.6 of Method 325B in appendix A to 
this part to determine the detection limit of benzene for each sampler 
used to collect samples and blanks.
    (2) The owner or operator must use a sampling period and sampling 
frequency as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iii) of 
this section.
    (i) A 14-day sampling period must be used unless a shorter sampling 
period is determined to be necessary under paragraph (e) or (g) of this 
section. A sampling period is defined as the period during which a 
sampling tube is deployed at a specific sampling location with the 
diffusive sampling end cap in-place and does not include the time 
required to analyze the sample. For the purpose of this subpart, a 14-
day sampling period may be no shorter than 13 calendar days and no 
longer than 15 calendar days, but the routine sampling period must be 
14 calendar days.
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, 
the frequency of sample collection must be once each contiguous 14-day 
sampling period, such that the beginning of the next 14-day sampling 
period begins immediately upon the completion of the previous 14-day 
sampling period.
    (iii) When an individual monitor consistently achieves results for 
benzene at or below the level specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section, the owner or operator may elect to use the applicable minimum 
sampling frequency specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) 
of this section for that monitoring site. When calculating [Delta]c for 
the monitoring period when using this alternative for burden reduction, 
use zero for the lowest sampling result for each monitoring period 
where one or more samples was not taken and/or analyzed for benzene.
    (A) If every sample at a monitoring site is at or below the level 
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for 2 years (52 
consecutive samples), every other sampling period can be skipped for 
that monitoring site, i.e., sampling will occur approximately once per 
month.
    (B) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the 
frequency specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A) of this section is at 
or below the level specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for 2 
years (i.e., 26 consecutive ``monthly'' samples), five 14-day sampling 
periods can be skipped for that monitoring site following each period 
of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur approximately once per quarter.
    (C) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the 
frequency specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of this section is at 
or below the level specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for 2 
years (i.e., 8 consecutive quarterly samples), twelve 14-day sampling 
periods can be skipped for that monitoring site following each period 
of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur twice a year.
    (D) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the 
frequency specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) of this section is at 
or below the level specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for 2 
years (i.e., 4 consecutive semiannual samples), only one sample per 
year is required for that monitoring site. For yearly sampling, samples 
shall

[[Page 55739]]

occur at least 10 months but no more than 14 months apart.
    (E) If at any time a sample for a monitoring site that is monitored 
at the frequency specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (D) of 
this section returns a result that is above the level specified in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the sampling site must return to the 
original sampling requirements of contiguous 14-day sampling periods 
with no skip periods for one quarter (six 14-day sampling periods). If 
every sample collected during this quarter is at or below the level 
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the owner or operator 
may revert back to the reduced monitoring schedule applicable for that 
monitoring site prior to the sample reading exceeding the level 
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If any sample collected 
during this quarter is above the level specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section, that monitoring site must return to the original sampling 
requirements of contiguous 14-day sampling periods with no skip periods 
for a minimum of two years. The burden reduction requirements can be 
used again for that monitoring site once the requirements of paragraph 
(a)(2)(iii)(A) of this section are met again, i.e., after 52 contiguous 
14-day samples with no results above the level specified in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section.
    (3) To use the alternative sampling frequency outlined in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section, an individual monitor must consistently achieve 
results for benzene at or below 0.7 mg/m\3\.
    (b) The owner or operator shall collect and record meteorological 
data according to the applicable requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section and/or if an alternative test method 
is used that provides time-resolved measurements, the owner or operator 
must use an on-site meteorological station in accordance with section 
8.3 of Method 325A in appendix A to this part. Collect and record 
hourly average meteorological data, including temperature, barometric 
pressure, wind speed and wind direction, and calculate daily unit 
vector wind direction and daily sigma theta.
    (2) For cases other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, the owner or operator shall collect and record sampling 
period average temperature and barometric pressure using either an on-
site meteorological station in accordance with section 8.3 of Method 
325A in appendix A to this part or, alternatively, using data from a 
National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological station provided the NWS 
meteorological station is within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the coke 
manufacturing facility.
    (3) If an on-site meteorological station is used, the owner or 
operator shall follow the calibration and standardization procedures 
for meteorological measurements in EPA-454/B-08-002 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (c) Within 45 days of completion of each sampling period, the owner 
or operator shall determine whether the results are above or below the 
action level as follows.
    (1) The owner or operator must determine the facility impact on the 
benzene concentration ([Delta]c) for each sampling period according to 
either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) Except when near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator shall 
determine the highest and lowest sample results for benzene 
concentrations from the sample pool and calculate [Delta]c as the 
difference in these concentrations. Co-located samples must be averaged 
together for the purposes of determining the benzene concentration for 
that sampling location, and, if applicable, for determining [Delta]c. 
The owner or operator shall adhere to the following procedures when one 
or more samples for the sampling period are below the method detection 
limit for benzene:
    (A) If the lowest detected value of benzene is below detection, the 
owner or operator shall use zero as the lowest sample result when 
calculating [Delta]c.
    (B) If all sample results are below the method detection limit, the 
owner or operator shall use the method detection limit as the highest 
sample result and zero as the lowest sample result when calculating 
[Delta]c.
    (C) In the case of co-located samples, if one sample is above the 
method detection limit while the other sample is below the method 
detection limit, the owner or operator must use the method detection 
limit as the result for the sample that is below the method detection 
limit for purposes of averaging the results to determine the 
concentration at a particular sampling location, and, if applicable, 
for determining [Delta]c.
    (ii) When near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the owner or operator must determine 
[Delta]c using the calculation protocols outlined in paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) of this section except as provided in this paragraph 
(c)(1)(ii), and the additional requirements in paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section, as well as any additional requirements outlined in the 
approved site-specific monitoring plan. The [Delta]c for the sampling 
period is equal to the higher of the values in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A) 
and (B) of this section.
    (A) The highest corrected sample result from a sampling location 
where near-field source correction is used during the sampling period.
    (B) The difference in concentration between the highest sample 
result that was not corrected for a near-field source during the 
sampling period and the lowest sample result for the sampling period.
    (2) The owner or operator must calculate the annual average 
[Delta]c based on the average of the 26 most recent 14-day sampling 
periods. The owner or operator must update this annual average value 
after receiving the results of each subsequent 14-day sampling period.
    (3) The action level for benzene is 7 mg/m\3\ on an annual average 
basis. If the annual average [Delta]c value for benzene is greater than 
7 mg/m\3\, the concentration is above the action level, and the owner 
or operator must conduct a root cause analysis and corrective action in 
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) Once the action level in paragraph (c)(3) of this section has 
been exceeded, the owner or operator must take the following actions to 
bring the annual average [Delta]c back below the action level.
    (1) Within 5 days of updating the annual average value as required 
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and determining that the action 
level in paragraph (c)(3) of this section has been exceeded (i.e., in 
no case longer than 50 days after completion of the sampling period), 
the owner or operator must initiate a root cause analysis to determine 
appropriate corrective action. A root cause analysis is an assessment 
conducted through a process of investigation to determine the primary 
underlying cause and all other contributing causes to an exceedance of 
the action level set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (i) Root cause analysis may include, but is not limited to:
    (A) Leak inspection using Method 21 in appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 
60, optical gas imaging, or handheld monitors.
    (B) Visual inspection to determine the cause of the high benzene 
emissions.
    (C) Employing progressively more frequent sampling, analysis and 
meteorology (e.g., using shorter

[[Page 55740]]

sampling periods for Methods 325A and 325B in appendix A to this part, 
or using active sampling techniques, like those utilized as part of a 
site-specific monitoring plan).
    (D) Operator knowledge of process changes (e.g., a malfunction or 
release event).
    (ii) If the root cause cannot be identified using the type of 
techniques described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, the owner 
or operator must employ more frequent sampling and analysis to 
determine the root cause of the exceedance.
    (A) The owner or operator may first employ additional monitoring 
points and shorter sampling periods for Methods 325A and 325B in 
appendix A to this part for benzene to determine the root cause of the 
exceedance.
    (B) If the owner or operator has not determined the root cause of 
the exceedance within 30 days of determining that the action level has 
been exceeded, the owner or operator must employ the appropriate real-
time sampling techniques (e.g., mobile gas chromatographs, optical 
spectroscopy instruments, sensors) to locate the cause of the 
exceedance. If the root cause is not identified after 48 hours, either 
the real-time monitor must be relocated or an additional real-time 
monitor must be added. Relocation or addition of extra real-time 
monitors must continue after each 48-hour period of nonidentification 
until the owner or operator can identify the root cause of the 
exceedance.
    (2) If either the underlying primary or other contributing causes 
of the exceedance are deemed to be under the control of the owner or 
operator and subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63, except 
as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owner or operator 
must take appropriate corrective action as expeditiously as possible to 
bring annual average fenceline concentrations back below the action 
level set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section and to prevent 
future exceedances from the same underlying cause(s).
    (3) If the underlying primary or other contributing cause of the 
exceedance is under the control of the owner or operator but not 
subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63, as evidenced 
through the root cause analysis in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and 
supported by appropriate real-time sampling techniques consistent with 
paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the owner or operator is not 
required to take corrective action under this subpart at any portion of 
the facility not subject to a regulation codified in 40 CFR part 63. 
However, the owner or operator must add additional monitoring locations 
in accordance with section 8.2.1.3 of EPA Method 325A in appendix A to 
this part or update their site-specific monitoring plan to add 
additional real-time monitors to account and correct for this near-
field source of emissions not subject to a regulation codified in 40 
CFR part 63 within 60 days of determining the underlying cause.
    (4) The root cause analysis must be completed and initial 
corrective actions, if applicable, taken no later than 45 days after 
determining there is an exceedance of an action level.
    (5) Except as noted in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, until the 
annual average [Delta]c is below the action level again, following the 
completion of the initial corrective action, the owner or operator must 
conduct a new root cause analysis according to this paragraph (d), and 
if required, submit a corrective action plan under paragraph (e) of 
this section following any sampling period for which the [Delta]c for 
the sampling period is greater than the action level in paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section.
    (6) This paragraph applies when an owner or operator is required 
under paragraph (d)(3) of this section to update the site-specific 
monitoring plan to account for an additional near-field emission 
source. Until the annual average [Delta]c is below the action level 
again, following implementation of the approved revision to the site-
specific monitoring plan, the owner or operator must conduct a new root 
cause analysis according to this paragraph (d), and if required, submit 
a corrective action plan under paragraph (e) of this section following 
any sampling period for which the [Delta]c for the sampling period is 
greater than the action level in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (e) An owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if 
any of the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this 
section are met. The corrective action plan must describe the 
corrective action(s) completed to date, additional measures that the 
owner or operator proposes to employ to reduce annual average fenceline 
concentrations below the action level set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section, and a schedule for completion of these measures. The 
corrective action plan does not need to be approved by the 
Administrator. However, if upon review, the Administrator disagrees 
with the additional measures outlined in the plan, the owner or 
operator must revise and resubmit the plan within 7 calendar days of 
receiving comments from the Administrator.
    (1) Except as noted in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, if upon 
completion of the root cause analysis and initial corrective actions 
required under paragraph (d) of the section, the [Delta]c value for the 
next sampling period, for which the sampling start time begins after 
the completion of the initial corrective actions, is greater than the 
level specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The corrective 
action plan must include the implementation of real-time sampling 
techniques to locate the primary and other contributing causes of the 
exceedance. The owner or operator must submit the corrective action 
plan to the Administrator within 60 days after receiving the analytical 
results indicating that the [Delta]c value for the sampling period 
following the completion of the initial corrective action is greater 
than the level specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (2) The owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if 
complete implementation of all corrective measures identified in the 
root cause analysis required by paragraph (e) of this section will 
require more than 45 days. The owner or operator must submit the 
corrective action plan to the Administrator no later than 60 days 
following the completion of the root cause analysis required in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (3) The owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if 
upon completion of the root cause analysis and following implementation 
of the approved revision to the site-specific monitoring plan required 
under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the [Delta]c value for the next 
sampling period, for which the sampling start time begins after 
implementation of the approved revision to the site-specific monitoring 
plan, is greater than the level specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section. The corrective action plan must include the implementation of 
real-time sampling techniques to locate the primary and other 
contributing causes of the exceedance. The owner or operator must 
submit the corrective action plan to the Administrator within 60 days 
after receiving the analytical results indicating that the [Delta]c 
value for the sampling period following the implementation of the 
approved revision to the site-specific monitoring plan is greater than 
the level specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (f) An owner or operator may request approval from the 
Administrator for a site-specific monitoring plan to account for 
offsite upwind sources or onsite sources not subject to a regulation

[[Page 55741]]

codified in 40 CFR part 63 according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must prepare and submit a site-specific 
monitoring plan and receive approval of the site-specific monitoring 
plan prior to using the near-field source alternative calculation for 
determining [Delta]c provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The 
site-specific monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the elements 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. The 
procedures in section 12 of Method 325A in appendix A to this part are 
not required, but may be used, if applicable, when determining near-
field source contributions.
    (i) Identification of the near-field source or sources. For onsite 
sources, specify that the onsite source is not subject to a regulation 
codified in 40 CFR part 63 and identify any federal regulation or 
federally enforceable permit condition the source is subject to.
    (ii) Identification of the fenceline monitoring locations impacted 
by the near-field source. If more than one near-field source is 
present, identify the near-field source or sources that are expected to 
contribute to the concentration at each monitoring location.
    (iii) A description of (including sample calculations illustrating) 
the planned data reduction; treatment of invalid data and data below 
detection limits; and calculations to determine the near-field source 
concentration contribution for each monitoring location.
    (iv) A detailed description of the measurement technique, 
measurement location(s), the standard operating procedures, measurement 
frequency, recording frequency, measurement detection limit, and data 
quality indicators to ensure accuracy, precision, and validity of the 
data. If you are accounting for on-site sources, you must use a real-
time sampling technique (e.g., mobile gas chromatographs, optical 
spectroscopy instruments, sensors).
    (v) A detailed description of how data will be handled during 
periods of calm wind conditions (i.e., less than 2 miles per hour).
    (2) When an approved site-specific monitoring plan is used, the 
owner or operator shall determine [Delta]c for comparison with action 
level according to paragraph (c) of this section. When determining the 
sample results for use in the [Delta]c calculation, the concentration 
for any monitor that has been corrected using an approved site-specific 
monitoring plan will be corrected according to the procedures specified 
in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) For each monitoring location corrected using the site-specific 
monitoring plan, the corrected fenceline concentration at that 
monitoring station will be equal to the fenceline concentration 
measured with Methods 325A and 325B in appendix A to this part minus 
the near-field source contributing concentration at the measurement 
location determined using the additional measurements and calculation 
procedures included in the approved site-specific monitoring plan.
    (ii) If the fenceline concentration at the monitoring station is 
below the method detection limit for Methods 325A and 325B in appendix 
A to this part, no near-field source contribution can be subtracted 
from that monitoring station for that sampling period.
    (3) The site-specific monitoring plan shall be submitted and 
approved as described in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the 
Administrator for approval.
    (ii) The site-specific monitoring plan shall also be submitted to 
the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (D243-02), Attention: Metals and Inorganic 
Chemicals Group, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711. Electronic copies in lieu of hard copies also may be submitted 
to [email protected].
    (iii) The Administrator shall approve or disapprove the plan in 120 
days. The plan shall be considered approved if the Administrator either 
approves the plan in writing or fails to disapprove the plan in 
writing. The 120-day period shall begin when the Administrator confirms 
receipt of a complete site-specific monitoring plan.
    (iv) If the Administrator finds any deficiencies in the site-
specific monitoring plan and disapproves the plan in writing, the owner 
or operator may revise and resubmit the site-specific monitoring plan 
following the requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. The 120-day period starts over with the resubmission of the 
revised monitoring plan. The Administrator may indicate in writing that 
a submitted plan is incomplete and specify the information necessary 
for completeness.
    (4) The approval by the Administrator of a site-specific monitoring 
plan will be based on the completeness, accuracy and reasonableness of 
the request for a site-specific monitoring plan. Factors that the 
Administrator will consider in reviewing the request for a site-
specific monitoring plan include, but are not limited to, those 
described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) The identification of the near-field source or sources and 
evidence of how the sources impact the fenceline concentration.
    (ii) The location(s) selected for additional monitoring to 
determine the near-field source concentration contribution.
    (iii) The identification of the fenceline monitoring locations 
impacted by the near-field source or sources.
    (iv) The appropriateness of the planned data reduction and 
calculations to determine the near-field source concentration 
contribution for each monitoring location, including the handling of 
invalid data, data below the detection limit, and data during calm 
periods.
    (v) The adequacy of the description of and the rationale for the 
measurement technique, measurement location(s), the standard operating 
procedure, the measurement and recording frequency, measurement 
detection limit, and data quality indicators proposed to ensure 
accuracy, precision, and validity of the data.
    (g) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.  63.311.
    (h) As outlined in Sec.  63.7(f), the owner or operator may submit 
a request for an alternative test method. At a minimum, the request 
must follow the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) 
of this section.
    (1) The alternative method may be used in lieu of all samplers or a 
partial number of the passive samplers required in Method 325A in 
appendix A to this part.
    (2) The alternative method must be validated according to Method 
301 in appendix A of this part or contain performance-based procedures 
and indicators to ensure self-validation.
    (3) The method detection limit must nominally be at least one-third 
of the action level. The alternate test method must describe the 
procedures used to provide field verification of the detection limit in 
the sample matrix being measured.
    (4) If the alternative test method will be used to replace some or 
all passive samplers required under paragraph (a) of this section, the 
spatial coverage must be equal to or better than the spatial coverage 
provided in Method 325A in appendix A to this part.

[[Page 55742]]

    (i) For path average concentration open-path instruments, the 
physical path length of the measurement shall be no more than a passive 
sample footprint (the spacing that would be provided by the sorbent 
traps when following Method 325A). For example, if Method 325A requires 
spacing monitors A and B 610 meters (2000 feet) apart, then the 
physical path length limit for the measurement at that portion of the 
fenceline shall be no more than 610 meters (2000 feet).
    (ii) For range resolved open-path instrument or approach, the 
instrument or approach must be able to resolve an average concentration 
over each passive sampler footprint within the path length of the 
instrument.
    (iii) The extra samplers required in sections 8.2.1.3 of Method 
325A may be omitted when they fall within the path length of an open-
path instrument.
    (5) At a minimum, non-integrating alternative test methods must 
provide a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and 
data recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
    (6) For alternative test methods capable of real time measurements 
(less than a 5-minute sampling and analysis cycle), the alternative 
test method may allow for elimination of data points corresponding to 
outside emission sources for purpose of calculation of the high point 
for the two-week average. The alternative test method approach must 
have wind speed, direction and stability class of the same time 
resolution and within the footprint of the instrument.
    (7) For purposes of averaging data points to determine the [Delta]c 
for the 14-day average high sample result, all results measured under 
the method detection limit must use the method detection limit. For 
purposes of averaging data points for the 14-day average low sample 
result, all results measured under the method detection limit must use 
zero.

Subpart CCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

0
15. Section 63.7280 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7280  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for pushing, soaking, quenching, battery 
stacks, heat and/or nonrecovery (HNR) heat recovery steam generator 
(HRSG) main stacks, and HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks at facilities 
that produce coke in coke oven batteries and facilities that recover 
heat from coke oven gas. This subpart also establishes requirements to 
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with all applicable 
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and 
maintenance requirements in this subpart.

0
16. Section 63.7282 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7282  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source at 
your coke plant. The affected source is each coke oven battery and 
units that recover heat from coke oven gas from the coke batteries.
    (b) This subpart covers emissions from pushing, soaking, quenching, 
by-product battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stacks from each affected source, as applicable to the coke 
oven facility.
    (c) An affected source at your coke plant is existing if you 
commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before 
July 3, 2001.
    (d) An affected source at your coke plant is new if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after July 
3, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition 
of ``reconstruction'' in Sec.  63.2. This paragraph (d) does not apply 
to the emission limitations listed in Sec. Sec.  63.7290(b) through 
(d), 63.7296(c) through (f), 63.7297(a) through (d), and 63.7298(a) 
through (e) for capture systems and control devices applied to pushing 
emissions, battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stacks, respectively.
    (e) An affected source at your coke plant is existing for the 
emissions limitations listed in Sec. Sec.  63.7290(b) through (d), 
63.7296(c) through (f), 63.7297(a) through (d), and 63.7298(a) through 
(e) for capture systems and control devices applied to pushing 
emissions, battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stacks, respectively if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source before August 16, 2023.
    (f) An affected source at your coke plant is new for the emissions 
limitations listed in Sec. Sec.  63.7290(b) through (d), 63.7296(c) 
through (f), 63.7297(a) through (d), and 63.7298(a) through (e) for 
capture systems and control devices applied to pushing emissions, 
battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat 
stacks, respectively if you commenced construction or reconstruction of 
the affected source on or after August 16, 2023.

0
17. Section 63.7283 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7283  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and 
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later 
than April 14, 2006. This paragraph does not apply to the emission 
limitations listed in Sec. Sec.  63.7290(b) through (d), 63.7296(c) 
through (f), 63.7297(a) through (d), and 63.7298(a) through (e) for 
capture systems and control devices applied to pushing emissions, 
battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat 
stacks, respectively.
    (b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is on or before April 14, 2003, you must comply with each emission 
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance 
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by April 14, 2003. This 
paragraph does not apply to the emission limitations listed in 
Sec. Sec.  63.7290(b) through (d), 63.7296(c) through (f), 63.7297(a) 
through (d), and 63.7298(a) through (e) for capture systems and control 
devices applied to pushing emissions, battery stacks, HNR HRSG main 
stacks, and HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks, respectively.
    (c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is after April 14, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation, 
work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in 
this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup. This paragraph 
does not apply to the emission limitations listed in Sec. Sec.  
63.7290(b) through (d), 63.7296(c) through (f), 63.7297(a) through (d), 
and 63.7298(a) through (e) for capture systems and control devices 
applied to pushing emissions, battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and 
HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks, respectively.
    (d) With regard to the Sec. Sec.  63.7290(b) through (d), 
63.7296(c) through (f), 63.7297(a) through (d), and 63.7298(a) through 
(e) emission limitations for capture systems and control devices 
applied to pushing emissions, battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and 
HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks, respectively:
    (1) If you have an existing affected source or a new or 
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction 
commenced on or before August 16, 2023, you must be in

[[Page 55743]]

compliance no later than January 5, 2026.
    (2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which 
construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2023, you 
must be in compliance no later than January 5, 2026 or upon startup, 
whichever is later.
    (e) With regard to the Sec.  63.7299 opacity limitations for HNR 
HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks:
    (1) If you have an existing affected source or a new or 
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction 
commenced on or before August 16, 2023, you must be in compliance no 
later than July 7, 2025.
    (2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which 
construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2023, you 
must be in compliance no later than July 7, 2025, or upon initial 
startup, whichever is later.
    (f) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec.  63.7340. Several of these notifications must be submitted before 
the compliance date for your affected source.

0
18. Section 63.7290 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7290  What emission limitations must I meet for capture 
systems and control devices applied to pushing emissions?

    (a) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions of 
particulate matter from a control device applied to pushing emissions 
from a new or existing coke oven battery that exceed the applicable 
limit in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) 0.01 grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) if a cokeside 
shed is used to capture emissions;
    (2) 0.02 pound per ton (lb/ton) of coke if a moveable hood vented 
to a stationary control device is used to capture emissions;
    (3) If a mobile scrubber car that does not capture emissions during 
travel is used:
    (i) 0.03 lb/ton of coke for a control device applied to pushing 
emissions from a short battery, or
    (ii) 0.01 lb/ton of coke for a control device applied to pushing 
emissions from a tall battery; and
    (4) 0.04 lb/ton of coke if a mobile control device that captures 
emissions during travel is used.
    (b) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions of mercury 
from a control device applied to pushing emissions from a new coke oven 
battery that exceeds 5.1E-07 lb/ton coke or existing coke oven battery 
that exceeds 8.9E-07 lb/ton coke.
    (c) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions of total 
acid gases from a control device applied to pushing emissions from a 
new coke oven battery that exceeds 5.3E-04 lb/ton coke or existing coke 
oven battery that exceeds 0.013 lb/ton coke.
    (d) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions of hydrogen 
cyanide from a control device applied to pushing emissions from a new 
coke oven battery that exceeds 3.8E-05 lb/ton coke or existing coke 
oven battery that exceeds 0.0015 lb/ton coke.
    (e) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions of total 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from a control device applied to 
pushing emissions from a new coke oven battery that exceeds 1.4E-05 lb/
ton coke or existing coke oven battery that exceeds 4.0E-04 lb/ton 
coke.
    (f) You must meet each operating limit in paragraphs (f)(1) through 
(4) of this section that applies to you for a new or existing coke oven 
battery.
    (1) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you 
must maintain the daily average pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate at or above the minimum levels established during the initial 
performance test.
    (2) For each hot water scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you 
must maintain the daily average water pressure and water temperature at 
or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance 
test.
    (3) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must 
maintain the daily average volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the 
control device at or above the minimum level established during the 
initial performance test; or
    (i) For each capture system that uses an electric motor to drive 
the fan, you must maintain the daily average fan motor amperes at or 
above the minimum level established during the initial performance 
test; and
    (ii) For each capture system that does not use a fan driven by an 
electric motor, you must maintain the daily average static pressure at 
the inlet to the control device at an equal or greater vacuum than the 
level established during the initial performance test or maintain the 
daily average fan revolutions per minute (RPM) at or above the minimum 
level established during the initial performance test.
    (4) For each multicyclone, you must maintain the daily average 
pressure drop at or below the minimum level established during the 
initial performance test.

0
19. Section 63.7293 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7293  What work practice standards must I meet for fugitive 
pushing emissions if I have a nonrecovery coke oven battery?

    (a) You must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section for each new and existing nonrecovery coke oven battery.
    (1) You must visually inspect each oven prior to pushing by opening 
the door damper and observing the bed of coke.
    (2) Do not push the oven unless the visual inspection indicates 
that there is no smoke in the open space above the coke bed and that 
there is an unobstructed view of the door on the opposite side of the 
oven.
    (b) As provided in Sec.  63.6(g), you may request to use an 
alternative to the work practice standard in paragraph (a) of this 
section.

0
20. Section 63.7296 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7296  What emission limitations must I meet for battery 
stacks?

    You must not discharge to the atmosphere any emissions from any 
battery stack at a new or existing by-product coke oven battery that 
exhibit an opacity greater than the applicable limits in paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of this section and emissions greater than the applicable 
limits in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section.
    (a) Daily average of 15 percent opacity for a battery on a normal 
coking cycle.
    (b) Daily average of 20 percent opacity for a battery on 
batterywide extended coking.
    (c) Emissions of particulate matter from a new by-product coke oven 
battery stack that exceeds 0.013 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen or 
existing by-product coke oven battery stack that exceeds 0.13 gr/dscf 
at 10 percent oxygen.
    (d) Emissions of mercury from a new by-product coke oven battery 
stack that exceeds 7.1E-06 lb/ton coke or existing by-product coke oven 
battery stack that exceeds 4.5E-05 lb/ton coke.
    (e) Emissions of total acid gases from a new by-product coke oven 
battery stack that exceeds 0.013 lb/ton coke or existing by-product 
coke oven battery stack that exceeds 0.16 lb/ton coke.
    (f) Emissions of hydrogen cyanide from a new by-product coke oven 
battery stack that exceeds 7.4E-04 lb/ton coke or existing by-product 
coke oven battery stack that exceeds 0.032 lb/ton coke.

0
21. Sections 63.7297 through 63.7299 are added to read as follows:
Sec.
63.7297 What emission limitations must I meet for HNR HRSG main 
stacks?

[[Page 55744]]

63.7298 What emission limitations must I meet for HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stacks?
63.7299 What opacity limitations must I meet for HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stacks?


Sec.  63.7297  What emission limitations must I meet for HNR HRSG main 
stacks?

    You must not discharge to the atmosphere any emissions from any HNR 
HRSG main stack at a new or existing HNR coke oven battery that exhibit 
emissions greater than the applicable limits in paragraphs (a) through 
(d) of this section.
    (a) Emissions of particulate matter from any HNR HRSG main stack at 
a new HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 8.8E-04 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen or any HNR HRSG main stack at an existing HNR coke oven battery 
that exceeds 0.0049 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen.
    (b) Emissions of mercury from any HNR HRSG main stack at a new HNR 
coke oven battery that exceeds 1.5E-06 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen or 
any HNR HRSG main stack at an existing HNR coke oven battery that 
exceeds 3.0E-06 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen.
    (c) Emissions of total acid gases from any HNR HRSG main stack at a 
new HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 0.0034 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen or any HNR HRSG main stack at an existing HNR coke oven battery 
that exceeds 0.049 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen.
    (d) Emissions of total PAHs from any HNR HRSG main stack at a new 
HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 4.7E-07 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen 
or any HRSG main stack at existing HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 
4.8E-07 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen.


Sec.  63.7298  What emission limitations must I meet for HNR HRSG 
bypass/waste heat stacks?

    You must not discharge to the atmosphere any emissions from any HNR 
HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at a new or existing HNR coke oven battery 
that exhibit emissions greater than the applicable limits in paragraphs 
(a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) Emissions of particulate matter from any HNR HRSG bypass/waste 
heat stack at a new HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 0.022 gr/dscf at 
10 percent oxygen or any HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an 
existing HNR coke battery that exceeds 0.032 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen.
    (b) Emissions of mercury from any HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack 
at a new HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 8.6E-06 gr/dscf at 10 
percent oxygen or any HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an existing 
HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 1.2E-05 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen.
    (c) Emissions of total acid gases from any HNR HRSG bypass/waste 
heat stack at a new HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 0.12 gr/dscf at 
10 percent oxygen or any HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an 
existing HNR coke battery that exceeds 0.095 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen.
    (d) Emissions of total PAHs from any HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat 
stack at a new or existing HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 2.7E-06 
gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen.
    (e) Emissions of formaldehyde from any HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat 
stack at a new HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 1.8E-05 gr/dscf at 10 
percent oxygen or any HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an existing 
HNR coke oven battery that exceeds 0.0012 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen.


Sec.  63.7299  What opacity limitations must I meet for HNR HRSG 
bypass/waste heat stacks?

    The owner or operator shall observe the exhaust stack of each 
bypass or waste heat stacks once each week that exhaust is emitted 
through each stack continuously for more than an hour. The observation 
shall be made when exhaust is being emitted through the bypass or waste 
heat stack to determine if opacity, as a 6-minute average measured 
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60, exceeds 20 
percent opacity. The owner or operator shall record the results of each 
observation. If a bypass event does not occur during a week or does not 
exceed one hour in duration, then no measurement is required for that 
week. If exhaust is emitted through any bypass or waste heat stack 
continuously for more than an hour during a week and no opacity 
measurement has been performed, the owner or operator shall record in 
the operating record the reason why conditions did not permit an 
opacity observation. If opacity greater than 20 percent opacity is 
observed during any weekly measurement, the owner or operator must:
    (a) Take corrective action to reduce the emissions contributing to 
the opacity;
    (b) Record the cause of opacity exceeding 20 percent and the 
corrective action taken; and
    (c) Report opacity exceedances in any HNR HRSG bypass or HNR waste 
heat stacks in the quarterly semiannual compliance report required by 
Sec.  63.7341.

0
22. Section 63.7300 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.7300  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec.  63.7310(a) you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system and 
control device applied to pushing emissions from a new or existing coke 
oven battery. Each plan must address at a minimum the elements in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that are important to the 
performance of the total capture system (e.g., pressure sensors, 
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include 
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g., 
presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by 
dents or accumulated dust in ductwork, and fan erosion). In the event a 
defect or deficiency is found in the capture system (during a monthly 
inspection or between inspections), you must complete repairs within 30 
days after the date that the defect or deficiency is discovered. If you 
determine that the repairs cannot be completed within 30 days, you must 
submit a written request for an extension of time to complete the 
repairs that must be received by the permitting authority not more than 
20 days after the date that the defect or deficiency is discovered. The 
request must contain a description of the defect or deficiency, the 
steps needed and taken to correct the problem, the interim steps being 
taken to mitigate the emissions impact of the defect or deficiency, and 
a proposed schedule for completing the repairs. The request shall be 
deemed approved unless and until such time as the permitting authority 
notifies you that it objects to the request. The permitting authority 
may consider all relevant factors in deciding whether to approve or 
deny the request (including feasibility and safety). Each approved 
schedule must provide for completion of repairs as expeditiously as 
practicable, and the permitting authority may request modifications to 
the proposed schedule as part of the approval process.

[[Page 55745]]

    (2) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a 
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (3) Corrective action for all baghouses applied to pushing 
emissions. In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered, 
you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm 
within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the 
cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the 
corrective action as soon as practicable. Actions may include, but are 
not limited to:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (4) Beginning January 5, 2026, you must identify and implement a 
set of site-specific good combustion practices for each battery. These 
good combustion practices should correspond to your standard operating 
procedures for maintaining the proper and efficient combustion within 
battery waste heat flues. Good combustion practices include, but are 
not limited to, the elements listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) 
of this section.
    (i) Proper operating conditions for each battery (e.g., minimum 
combustion temperature, burner alignment, or proper fuel-air 
distribution/mixing).
    (ii) Routine inspection and preventative maintenance and 
corresponding schedules of each battery.
    (iii) Performance analyses of each battery.
    (iv) Maintaining applicable operator logs.
    (v) Maintaining applicable records to document compliance with each 
element.
* * * * *

0
23. Section 63.7310 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7310  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, work 
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this 
subpart at all times. At all times, you must operate and maintain any 
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment 
and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good 
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general 
duty to minimize emissions does not require further efforts to reduce 
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been 
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance 
with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on 
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source.
    (b) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your affected source in Sec.  63.7283 and the date upon which 
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any 
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log 
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions 
control equipment.

0
24. Section 63.7320 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7320  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) As required in Sec.  63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance 
test to demonstrate compliance with each limit in:
    (1) Section 63.7290(a) through (e) for emissions of particulate 
matter, mercury, total acid gases, HCN, and total PAH from a control 
device applied to pushing emissions that applies to you within 180 
calendar days after the compliance date that is specified in Sec.  
63.7283.
    (2) Section 63.7296(c) through (f) for emissions of particulate 
matter, mercury, total acid gases, and HCN from a battery stack that 
applies to you within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that 
is specified in Sec.  63.7283.
    (3) Section 63.7297(a) through (d) for emissions of mercury, 
particulate matter, total acid gases, and total PAH from a HNR HRSG 
main stack that applies to you within 180 calendar days after the 
compliance date that is specified in Sec.  63.7283.
    (4) Section 63.7298(a) through (e) for emissions of mercury, 
particulate matter, total acid gases, total PAH, and formaldehyde from 
a HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack that applies to you within 180 
calendar days after the compliance date that is specified in Sec.  
63.7283.
* * * * *

0
25. Section 63.7321 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7321  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) For each control device subject to an emission limit for 
particulate matter in Sec.  63.7290(a), you must conduct subsequent 
performance tests no less frequently than once every 5 years or at the 
beginning of each term of your title V operating permit, whichever is 
less.
    (b) For each source subject to emission limits in Sec. Sec.  
63.7290(b) through (d), 63.7296(c) through (f), 63.7297(a) through (d), 
and 63.7298(a) through (e) for capture systems and control devices 
applied to pushing emissions, battery stacks, HNR HRSG main stacks, and 
HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks sources, respectively, you must 
conduct subsequent performance tests once every five years.

0
26. Section 63.7322 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7322  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance 
based on the entire range of normal operating conditions) of the 
affected source for the period being tested, according to the 
requirements in paragraph (b) through (g) of this section. 
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You 
shall not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You 
must record the process information that is necessary to document 
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an 
explanation to support that such conditions represent the entire range 
of normal operation, including operational conditions for maximum 
emission if such emissions are not expected during maximum production. 
You shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be 
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (b) To determine compliance with the emission limit for particulate 
matter from a control device applied to pushing emissions where a 
cokeside shed is the capture system, battery stack, HNR HRSG main 
stack, and HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack, follow the test methods 
and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

[[Page 55746]]

To determine compliance with a process-weighted mass rate of 
particulate matter (lb/ton of coke) from a control device applied to 
pushing emissions where a cokeside shed is not used, follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to 
the following test methods in appendices A-1 through A-3 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 (but not instrumental procedures) for measuring the 
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas, 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (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 filterable particulate matter in the stack gas.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 30 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each test run. Three valid test runs are needed to 
comprise a performance test. During each particulate matter test run to 
meet the emission limitations in Sec.  63.7290, sample only during 
periods of actual pushing when the capture system fan and control 
device are engaged. For capture systems and control devices applied to 
pushing emissions each run must start at the beginning of a push and 
finish at the end of a push (i.e., sample for an integral number of 
pushes).
    (3) Determine the total combined weight in tons of coke pushed 
during the duration of each test run according to the procedures in 
your source test plan for calculating coke yield from the quantity of 
coal charged to an individual oven.
    (4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep, PM) 
for each test run using equation 1 to this paragraph (b)(4) as follows:
Equation 1 to Paragraph (b)(4)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.003


Where:

Ep, PM = Process weighted mass emissions of particulate 
matter, lb/ton;
CPM = Concentration of particulate matter, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
[Theta] = Total sampling run time; the time during a run that a 
sample is withdrawn from the stack during pushing, hr;
P = Total amount of coke pushed during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.

    (c) To determine compliance with the emission limit for mercury 
from a control device applied to pushing emissions where a cokeside 
shed is the capture system, battery stack, HNR HRSG main stack, and HNR 
HRSG bypass/waste heat stack, follow the test methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. To determine compliance with 
a process-weighted mass rate of mercury (lb/ton of coke) from a control 
device applied to pushing emissions and battery stack, follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of mercury according to the 
following test methods.
    (i) The methods specified in sections (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (ii) Method 29 in appendix A-8 to 40 CFR part 60, to determine the 
concentration of mercury in the stack gas. The voluntary consensus 
standard ASTM D6784-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) is 
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury only) 
as a method for measuring mercury, note: applies to concentrations 
approximately 0.5--100 [mu]g/Nm3.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 70 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each mercury test run. Three valid test runs are needed 
to comprise a performance test. During each mercury test run to meet 
the emission limitations in Sec.  63.7290, sample only during periods 
of actual pushing when the capture system fan and control device are 
engaged. For capture systems and control devices applied to pushing 
emissions each run must start at the beginning of a push and finish at 
the end of a push (i.e., sample for an integral number of pushes).
    (3) Determine the total combined weight in tons of coke pushed 
during the duration of each test run according to the procedures in 
your source test plan for calculating coke yield from the quantity of 
coal charged to an individual oven.
    (4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep,Hg) 
for each test run using equation 2 to this paragraph (c)(4) as follows:
Equation 2 to Paragraph (c)(4)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.004


Where:

Ep,Hg = Process weighted mass emissions of mercury, lb/
ton;
CHg = Concentration of mercury, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
[Theta] = Total sampling run time; the time during a run that a 
sample is withdrawn from the stack, for capture systems and control 
devices applied to pushing emissions, total time during a run that a 
sample is withdrawn from the stack during pushing, hr;
P = Total amount of coke pushed during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.

    (d) To determine compliance with the emission limit for total acid 
gases from a HNR HRSG main stack and HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack, 
follow the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 
this section. To determine compliance with a process-weighted mass rate 
of total acid gases (lb/ton of coke) from a control device applied to 
pushing emissions and battery stack, follow the test methods and 
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of total acid gases according to 
the following test methods.
    (i) The methods specified in sections (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (ii) Methods 26 or 26A in appendix A-8 to 40 CFR part 60, or Method 
320 in appendix A to this part, to determine the concentration of total 
acid gases in the stack gas. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM 
D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) 
is an acceptable alternative to Method 320 at this time with caveats 
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. 
When using ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), the following conditions 
must be met:
    (A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory; 
and
    (B) In ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 
Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target 
analyte (Equation A5.5).
    (C) In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, % R 
must be greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 130%. If 
the % R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 
test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be 
repeated for that analyte

[[Page 55747]]

(i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted 
before a retest). The % R value for each compound must be reported in 
the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the 
calculated % R value for that compound by using equation 3 to this 
paragraph (d)((1)(ii)(C):
Equation 3 to Paragraph (d)((1)(ii)(C)
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack)/(% R)) x 100.

    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 35 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each test run for Method 26 and 26A in appendix A-8 to 40 
CFR part 60. For Method 320 in appendix A to this part and ASTM D6348-
12 (Reapproved 2020) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), each 
test run must be a minimum of one hour in duration. Three valid test 
runs are needed to comprise a performance test. During each total acid 
gases test run to meet the emission limitations in Sec.  63.7290, 
sample only during periods of pushing when the capture system fan and 
control device are engaged. For capture systems and control devices 
applied to pushing emissions each run must start at the beginning of a 
push and finish at the end of a push (i.e., sample for an integral 
number of pushes).
    (3) Determine the total combined weight in tons of coke pushed 
during the duration of each test run according to the procedures in 
your source test plan for calculating coke yield from the quantity of 
coal charged to an individual oven.
    (4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep,AG) 
for each test run using equation 4 to this paragraph (d)(4) as follows:
Equation 4 to Paragraph (d)(4)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.005


Where:

Ep,AG = Process weighted mass emissions of total acid 
gases, lb/ton;
CAG = Concentration of total acid gases, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
[Theta] = Total sampling run time; the time during a run that a 
sample is withdrawn from the stack, for capture systems and control 
devices applied to pushing emissions, total time during a run that a 
sample is withdrawn from the stack during pushing, hr;
P = Total amount of coke pushed during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.

    (e) To determine compliance with a process-weighted mass rate of 
hydrogen cyanide (lb/ton of coke) from a control device applied to 
pushing emissions and battery stack, follow the test methods and 
procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of hydrogen cyanide according to 
the following test methods.
    (i) The methods specified in sections (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (ii) Method 320 in appendix A to this part, to determine the 
concentration of hydrogen cyanide in the stack gas. The voluntary 
consensus standard ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14) is an acceptable alternative to Method 320 
at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to 
the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), 
the following conditions must be met:
    (A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory; 
and
    (B) In ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 
Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target 
analyte (Equation A5.5).
    (C) In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, % R 
must be greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 130%. If 
the % R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 
test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be 
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 
procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The % R value for each 
compound must be reported in the test report, and all field 
measurements must be corrected with the calculated % R value for that 
compound by using equation 5 to this paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(C):
Equation 5 to Paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(C)
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack)/(% R)) x 100.

    (2) Collect a minimum of eight spectra for each of six runs (or 
hours) evenly spaced over the test period for Method 320 in appendix A 
to this part or alternatively ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14). Three valid test runs are 
needed to comprise a performance test. During each hydrogen cyanide 
test run to meet the emission limitations in Sec.  63.7290, sample only 
during periods of actual pushing when the capture system fan and 
control device are engaged. For capture systems and control devices 
applied to pushing emissions each run must start at the beginning of a 
push and finish at the end of a push (i.e., sample for an integral 
number of pushes).
    (3) Determine the total combined weight in tons of coke pushed 
during the duration of each test run according to the procedures in 
your source test plan for calculating coke yield from the quantity of 
coal charged to an individual oven.
    (4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep,HCN) 
for each test run using equation 6 to this paragraph (e)(4) as follows:
Equation 6 to Paragraph (e)(4)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.006


Where:

Ep,HCN = Process weighted mass emissions of hydrogen 
cyanide, lb/ton;
CHCN = Concentration of hydrogen cyanide, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
[Theta] = Total sampling run time; the time during a run that a 
sample is withdrawn from the stack, for capture systems and control 
devices applied to pushing emissions, total time during a run that a 
sample is withdrawn from the stack during pushing, hr;
P = Total amount of coke pushed during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.

    (f) To determine compliance with the emission limit for total PAH 
from a HNR HRSG main stack and HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack, follow 
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 
section. To determine compliance with a process-weighted mass rate of 
total PAH (lb/ton of coke) from a control device applied to pushing 
emissions, follow the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of total PAH, the sum of 17 PAH 
compounds listed at Sec.  63.7290(e), according to the following test 
methods.
    (i) The methods specified in sections (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (ii) Method 23 in appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, to determine the 
concentration of total PAH in the stack gas.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 105 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each test run for total PAH. Three valid test runs are 
needed to comprise a performance test. During each total PAH test run 
to meet the emission limitations in Sec.  63.7290, sample only during 
periods of actual pushing when the capture system fan and control 
device are engaged. For capture systems and control devices applied to 
pushing emissions each run must start at the beginning of a push

[[Page 55748]]

and finish at the end of a push (i.e., sample for an integral number of 
pushes). When calculating total PAH, the estimated level of detection 
(EDL) shall be used for each PAH measured below the EDL.
    (3) Determine the total combined weight in tons of coke pushed 
during the duration of each test run according to the procedures in 
your source test plan for calculating coke yield from the quantity of 
coal charged to an individual oven.
    (4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (Ep,PAH) 
for each test run using equation 7 to this paragraph (f)(4) as follows:
Equation 7 to Paragraph (f)(4)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JY24.007


Where:

Ep,PAH = Process weighted mass emissions of total PAH, 
lb/ton;
CPAH = Concentration of each PAH, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
[Theta] = Total sample run time; the time during a run that a sample 
is withdrawn from the stack during pushing, hr;
P = Total amount of coke pushed during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.

    (g) To determine compliance with the emission limit for 
formaldehyde from a HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack, follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of formaldehyde according to the 
following test methods.
    (i) The methods specified in sections (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (ii) Method 316 or Method 320 in appendix A to this part, to 
determine the concentration of formaldehyde in the stack gas. The 
voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) is an acceptable 
alternative to Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion 
of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM 
D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), the following conditions must be met:
    (A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory; 
and
    (B) In ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 
Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target 
analyte (Equation A5.5).
    (C) In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, % R 
must be greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 130%. If 
the % R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 
test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be 
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 
procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The % R value for each 
compound must be reported in the test report, and all field 
measurements must be corrected with the calculated % R value for that 
compound by using equation 8 to this paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(C):
Equation 8 to Paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(C)
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack)/(% R)) x 100.

    (2) Sample time should ensure that minimum quantification levels 
have been met under the methods used during each test run, for Method 
320 in appendix A to this part or ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), each test run must be at 
least one hour in duration. Three valid test runs are needed to 
comprise a performance test.

0
27. Section 63.7323 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7323  What procedures must I use to establish operating 
limits?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3) for 
volumetric flow rate, measure and record the total volumetric flow rate 
at the inlet of the control device during each push sampled for each 
particulate matter test run. Your operating limit is the lowest 
volumetric flow rate recorded during any of the three runs that meet 
the emission limit.
    (2) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3)(i) for 
fan motor amperes, measure and record the fan motor amperes during each 
push sampled for each particulate matter test run. Your operating limit 
is the lowest fan motor amperes recorded during any of the three runs 
that meet the emission limit.
    (3) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3)(ii) for 
static pressure or fan RPM, measure and record the static pressure at 
the inlet of the control device or fan RPM during each push sampled for 
each particulate matter test run. Your operating limit for static 
pressure is the minimum vacuum recorded during any of the three runs 
that meets the emission limit. Your operating limit for fan RPM is the 
lowest fan RPM recorded during any of the three runs that meets the 
emission limit.
* * * * *

0
28. Section 63.7324 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7324  What procedures must I use to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the opacity limits?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance 
based on the entire range of normal operating conditions) of the 
affected source for the period being tested, according to the 
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section. Representative 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not 
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must 
record the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions represent the entire range of normal 
operation, including operational conditions for maximum emissions if 
such emissions are not expected during maximum production. You shall 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *

0
29. Section 63.7325 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7325  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the TDS or constituent limits for 
quench water?

    (a) If you elect the TDS limit for quench water in Sec.  
63.7295(a)(1)(i), you must conduct each performance test that applies 
to your affected source based on representative performance (i.e., 
performance based on the entire range of normal operating conditions) 
of the affected source for the period being tested, according to the 
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. Representative 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not 
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must 
record the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions represent the entire range of normal 
operation, including operational conditions for maximum emissions if 
such emissions are not expected during maximum production. You shall 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *

[[Page 55749]]


0
30. Section 63.7326 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7326  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each coke oven battery subject to the emission limits from 
a control device applied to pushing emissions, you have demonstrated 
initial compliance if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (9) of this section that apply to you.
    (1) The concentration of particulate matter, measured in accordance 
with the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(b)(1) and (2), 
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for a control device where a cokeside shed 
is used to capture pushing emissions or the process-weighted mass rate 
of particulate matter (lb/ton of coke), measured in accordance with the 
performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(b)(1) through (4), did not 
exceed:
    (i) 0.02 lb/ton of coke if a moveable hood vented to a stationary 
control device is used to capture emissions;
    (ii) If a mobile scrubber car that does not capture emissions 
during travel is used, 0.03 lb/ton of coke from a control device 
applied to pushing emissions from a short coke oven battery or 0.01 lb/
ton of coke from a control device applied to pushing emissions from a 
tall coke oven battery; and
    (iii) 0.04 lb/ton of coke if a mobile control device that captures 
emissions during travel is used.
    (2) The process-weighted mass rate of mercury (lb/ton of coke), 
measured in accordance with the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7322(c)(1) through (4), did not exceed 3.4E-07 lb/ton coke for 
pushing emissions from a new coke oven battery or 8.9E-07 lb/ton coke 
for pushing emissions from an existing coke oven battery.
    (3) The process-weighted mass rate of total acid gases, the sum of 
hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid (lb/ton of coke), measured in 
accordance with the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(d)(1) 
through (4), did not exceed 5.1E-04 lb/ton coke for pushing emissions 
from a new coke oven battery or 0.0052 lb/ton coke for pushing 
emissions from an existing coke oven battery.
    (4) The process-weighted mass rate of hydrogen cyanide (lb/ton of 
coke), measured in accordance with the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7322(e)(1) through (4), did not exceed 3.8E-05 lb/ton coke for 
pushing emissions from a new coke oven battery or 0.0011 lb/ton coke 
for pushing emissions from an existing coke oven battery.
    (5) The process-weighted mass rate of total PAH (lb/ton of coke), 
measured in accordance with the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7322(f)(1) through (4), did not exceed 1.4E-05 lb/ton coke for 
pushing emissions from a new coke oven battery or 3.4E-04 lb/ton coke 
for pushing emissions from an existing coke oven battery.
    (6) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you 
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7323(a).
    (7) For each hot water scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you 
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the water pressure and temperature measured during the 
performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7323(b).
    (8) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you have 
established an appropriate site-specific operating limit, and:
    (i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3) for 
volumetric flow rate, you have a record of the total volumetric flow 
rate at the inlet of the control device measured during the performance 
test in accordance with Sec.  63.7323(c)(1); or
    (ii) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3)(i) for 
fan motor amperes, you have a record of the fan motor amperes during 
the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7323(c)(2); or
    (iii) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3)(ii) 
for static pressure or fan RPM, you have a record of the static 
pressure at the inlet of the control device or fan RPM measured during 
the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7323(c)(3).
    (9) For each multicyclone applied to pushing emissions, you have 
established an appropriate site-specific operating limit and have a 
record of the pressure drop measured during the performance test in 
accordance with Sec.  63.7323(d).
    (b) For each new or existing by-product coke oven battery subject 
to the emission limits in Sec.  63.7296, you have demonstrated initial 
compliance if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(5) of this section.
    (1) The opacity limit for stacks in Sec.  63.7296(a), you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if the daily average opacity, as 
measured according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7324(b), is no more than 15 percent for a battery on a normal coking 
cycle or 20 percent for a battery on batterywide extended coking.
    (2) The concentration of particulate matter, measured in accordance 
with the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(b)(1) and (2), 
did not exceed 0.013 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a battery stack 
at a new by-product coke oven battery or 0.13 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen from a battery stack at an existing by-product coke oven 
battery.
    (3) The process-weighted mass rate of mercury (lb/ton of coke), 
measured in accordance with the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7322(c)(1) through (4), did not exceed 7.1E-06 lb/ton coke from a 
battery stack at a new by-product coke oven battery or 4.5E-05 lb/ton 
coke from a battery stack at an existing by-product coke oven battery.
    (4) The process-weighted mass rate of total acid gases (lb/ton of 
coke), measured in accordance with the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7322(d)(1) through (4), did not exceed 0.013 lb/ton coke from 
a battery stack at a new by-product coke oven battery or 0.16 lb/ton 
coke from a battery stack at an existing by-product coke oven battery.
    (5) The process-weighted mass rate of hydrogen cyanide (lb/ton of 
coke), measured in accordance with the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7322(e)(1) through (4), did not exceed 7.4E-04 lb/ton coke 
from a battery stack at a new by-product coke oven battery or 0.032 lb/
ton coke from a battery stack at an existing by-product coke oven 
battery.
    (c) For each new or existing by-product coke oven battery subject 
to the TDS limit or constituent limits for quench water in Sec.  
63.7295(a)(1),
    (1) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the TDS limit in 
Sec.  63.7295(a)(1)(i) if the TDS concentration, as measured according 
to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7325(a), does not exceed 
1,100 mg/L.
    (2) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the constituent 
limit in Sec.  63.7295(a)(1)(ii) if:
    (i) You have established a site-specific constituent limit 
according to the procedures in Sec.  63.7325(b); and
    (ii) The sum of the constituent concentrations, as measured 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7325(c), is 
less than or equal to the site-specific limit.
    (d) For each new or existing HNR HRSG main stack subject to the 
emission limits in Sec.  63.7297, you have demonstrated initial 
compliance if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(4) of this section.

[[Page 55750]]

    (1) The concentration of particulate matter, measured in accordance 
with the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(b)(1) and (2), 
did not exceed 8.8E-04 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG 
main stack at a new HNR coke battery or 0.0049 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen at a HNR HRSG main stack at an existing HNR coke oven battery.
    (2) The concentration of mercury, measured in accordance with the 
performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(c)(1) and (2), did not 
exceed 1.5E-06 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG main stack 
at a new HNR coke battery or 3.0E-06 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen at a 
HNR HRSG main stack at an existing HNR HRSG.
    (3) The concentration of total acid gases, measured in accordance 
with the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(d)(1) and (2), 
did not exceed 3.4E-03 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG 
main stack at a new coke oven battery or 4.9E-02 gr/dscf at 10 percent 
oxygen at a HNR HRSG main stack at an existing HNR coke oven battery.
    (4) The concentration of total PAHs, measured in accordance with 
the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(f)(1) and (2), did not 
exceed 4.7E-07 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG main stack 
at a new coke oven battery or 4.8E-07 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen at a 
HNR HRSG main stack at an existing HNR coke oven battery.
    (e) For each HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack through which 
emissions are discharged from a new or existing coke oven battery 
subject to the emission limits in Sec.  63.7298, you have demonstrated 
initial compliance if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) 
through (5) of this section.
    (1) The concentration of particulate matter, measured in accordance 
with the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(b)(1) and (2), 
did not exceed 0.022 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG 
bypass/waste heat stack at a new HNR coke oven battery or 0.032 gr/dscf 
at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an 
existing HNR coke oven battery.
    (2) The concentration of mercury, measured in accordance with the 
performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(c)(1) and (2), did not 
exceed 8.6E-06 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stack at a new HNR coke oven battery or 1.2E-05 gr/dscf at 
10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an 
existing HNR coke battery.
    (3) The concentration of total acid gases, measured in accordance 
with the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(d)(1) and (2), 
did not exceed 0.12 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG 
bypass/waste heat stack at a new HNR coke oven battery or 0.095 gr/dscf 
at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an 
existing HNR coke oven battery.
    (4) The concentration of total PAHs, measured in accordance with 
the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(f)(1) and (2), did not 
exceed 2.7E-06 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stack at a new coke oven battery or existing HNR coke oven 
battery.
    (5) The concentration of formaldehyde, measured in accordance with 
the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7322(g)(1) and (2), did not 
exceed 1.8E-05 gr/dscf at 10 percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG bypass/
waste heat stack at a new HNR coke oven battery or 0.0012 gr/dscf at 10 
percent oxygen from a HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack at an existing 
HNR coke oven battery.
    (f) For each by-product coke oven battery stack subject to an 
opacity limit in Sec.  63.7296(a) and each by-product coke oven battery 
subject to the requirements for quench water in Sec.  63.7295(a)(1), 
you must submit a notification of compliance status containing the 
results of the COMS performance test for battery stacks and the quench 
water performance test (TDS or constituent limit) according to Sec.  
63.7340(e)(1). For each particulate matter, mercury, total acid gases, 
hydrogen cyanide, total PAHs, or formaldehyde emission limitation that 
applies to you, you must submit a notification of compliance status 
containing a summary of the results of the performance test according 
to Sec.  63.7340(e)(2).

0
31. Section 63.7327 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7327  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (c) For each nonrecovery coke oven battery subject to the work 
practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions in Sec.  63.7293(a), 
you have demonstrated initial compliance if you certify in your 
notification of compliance status that you will meet each of the work 
practice requirements beginning no later than the compliance date that 
is specified in Sec.  63.7283.
* * * * *

0
32. Section 63.7331 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) through 
(6) and (g) through (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7331  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (3), (4)(ii), (7), 
and (8);
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.8(d)(1) and (2) and 
63.7342(b)(3); and
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c)(1) through (14) and (e)(1) 
and (2)(i).
* * * * *
    (g) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3) for a 
capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install, operate, 
and maintain a device to measure the total volumetric flow rate at the 
inlet of the control device.
    (h) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3)(i) for 
a capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install, 
operate, and maintain a device to measure the fan motor amperes.
    (i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3)(ii) for 
a capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install, 
operate and maintain a device to measure static pressure at the inlet 
of the control device or the fan RPM.
* * * * *

0
33. Section 63.7333 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7333  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each control device applied to pushing emissions and 
subject to the emission limit in Sec.  63.7290(a), you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below the 
applicable limits in paragraphs Sec.  63.7290(a)(1) through (4); and
    (2) Conducting subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continuous compliance no less frequently than at the beginning of your 
title V operating permit or every 5 years, whichever is less.
    (b) For each control device applied to pushing emissions and 
subject to the emission limits in Sec.  63.7290(b) through (e), you 
must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining emissions of mercury at or below the applicable 
limits in Sec.  63.7290(b);

[[Page 55751]]

    (2) Maintaining emissions of total acid gases at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7290(c);
    (3) Maintaining emissions of hydrogen cyanide at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7290(d);
    (4) Maintaining emissions of total PAHs at or below the applicable 
limits in Sec.  63.7290(e); and
    (5) Conducting subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continuous compliance once every five years.
    (c) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions and 
subject to the operating limits in Sec.  63.7290(f)(1), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the daily average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial 
or subsequent performance test.
    (2) Operating and maintaining each CPMS according to Sec.  
63.7331(b) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec.  63.7331(e)(1) through (3).
    (d) For each hot water scrubber applied to pushing emissions and 
subject to the operating limits in Sec.  63.7290(f)(2), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the daily average water pressure and temperature at 
levels no lower than those established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test.
    (2) Operating and maintaining each CPMS according to Sec.  
63.7331(b) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for water pressure and 
temperature according to Sec.  63.7331(f).
    (e) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions and 
subject to the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in 
paragraph (e)(1), (2), or (3) of this section:
    (1) If you elect the operating limit for volumetric flow rate in 
Sec.  63.7290(f)(3):
    (i) Maintaining the daily average volumetric flow rate at the inlet 
of the control device at or above the minimum level established during 
the initial or subsequent performance test; and
    (ii) Checking the volumetric flow rate at least every 8 hours to 
verify the daily average is at or above the minimum level established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test and recording the 
results of each check.
    (2) If you elect the operating limit for fan motor amperes in Sec.  
63.7290(f)(3)(i):
    (i) Maintaining the daily average fan motor amperages at or above 
the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test; and
    (ii) Checking the fan motor amperage at least every 8 hours to 
verify the daily average is at or above the minimum level established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test and recording the 
results of each check.
    (3) If you elect the operating limit for static pressure or fan RPM 
in Sec.  63.7290(f)(3)(ii):
    (i) Maintaining the daily average static pressure at the inlet to 
the control device at an equal or greater vacuum than established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test or the daily average 
fan RPM at or above the minimum level established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test; and
    (ii) Checking the static pressure or fan RPM at least every 8 hours 
to verify the daily average static pressure at the inlet to the control 
device is at an equal or greater vacuum than established during the 
initial or subsequent performance test or the daily average fan RPM is 
at or above the minimum level established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test and recording the results of each check.
    (f) Beginning on the first day compliance is required under Sec.  
63.7283, you must demonstrate continuous compliance for each by-product 
coke oven battery subject to the opacity limit for battery stacks in 
Sec.  63.7296(a) by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and 
(2) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining the daily average opacity at or below 15 percent 
for a battery on a normal coking cycle or 20 percent for a battery on 
batterywide extended coking; and
    (2) Operating and maintaining a COMS and collecting and reducing 
the COMS data according to Sec.  63.7331(j).
    (g) For each battery stack subject to the emission limits in Sec.  
63.7296(c) through (f), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this 
section:
    (1) Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7296(c);
    (2) Maintaining emissions of mercury at or below the applicable 
limits in Sec.  63.7296(d);
    (3) Maintaining emissions of total acid gases at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7296(e);
    (4) Maintaining emissions of hydrogen cyanide at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7296(f); and
    (5) Conducting subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continuous compliance once every five years.
    (h) Beginning on the first day compliance is required under Sec.  
63.7283, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the TDS limit 
for quenching in Sec.  63.7295(a)(1)(i) by meeting the requirements in 
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining the TDS content of the water used to quench hot 
coke at 1,100 mg/L or less; and
    (2) Determining the TDS content of the quench water at least weekly 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7325(a) and recording the 
sample results.
    (i) Beginning on the first day compliance is required under Sec.  
63.7283, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
constituent limit for quenching in Sec.  63.7295(a)(1)(ii) by meeting 
the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining the sum of the concentrations of benzene, 
benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene in the water used to quench hot coke at 
levels less than or equal to the site-specific limit approved by the 
permitting authority; and
    (2) Determining the sum of the constituent concentrations at least 
monthly according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7325(c) and recording 
the sample results.
    (j) For each multicyclone applied to pushing emissions and subject 
to the operating limit in Sec.  63.7290(f)(4), you must demonstrate 
compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the daily average pressure drop at a level at or 
below the level established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test.
    (2) Operating and maintaining each CPMS according to Sec.  
63.7331(k) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop 
according to Sec.  63.7331(e)(1) through (3).
    (k) For each HNR HRSG main stack subject to the emission limits in 
Sec.  63.7297(a) through (d), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by

[[Page 55752]]

meeting the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this 
section:
    (1) Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7297(a);
    (2) Maintaining emissions of mercury at or below the applicable 
limits in Sec.  63.7297(b);
    (3) Maintaining emissions of total acid gases at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7297(c);
    (4) Maintaining emissions of total PAHs at or below the applicable 
limits in Sec.  63.7297(d); and
    (5) Conducting subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continuous compliance once every five years.
    (l) For each HNR HRSG bypass/waste heat stack subject to the 
emission limits in Sec.  63.7298(a) through (e), you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (l)(1) 
through (6) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7298(a);
    (2) Maintaining emissions of mercury at or below the applicable 
limits in Sec.  63.7298(b);
    (3) Maintaining emissions of total acid gases at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7298(c);
    (4) Maintaining emissions of total PAHs at or below the applicable 
limits in Sec.  63.7298(d);
    (5) Maintaining emissions of total formaldehyde at or below the 
applicable limits in Sec.  63.7298(e); and
    (6) Conducting subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continuous compliance once every five years.

0
34. Section 63.7334 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (4), and 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7334  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

    (a) * * *
    (3) Make all observations and calculations for opacity observations 
of fugitive pushing emissions in accordance with Method 9 in appendix 
A-4 to 40 CFR part 60 using a Method 9 certified observer unless you 
have an approved alternative procedure under paragraph (a)(7) of this 
section. Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16, (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the owner or operator or 
the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds 
of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field 
use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a 
sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating 
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks 
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as 
outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping 
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, 
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for 
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum 
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine 
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    (4) Record pushing opacity observations at 15-second intervals as 
required in section 2.4 of Method 9 in appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60. 
The requirement in section 2.4 of Method 9 for a minimum of 24 
observations does not apply, and the data reduction requirements in 
section 2.5 of Method 9 do not apply. The requirement in Sec.  
63.6(h)(5)(ii)(B) for obtaining at least 3 hours of observations 
(thirty 6-minute averages) to demonstrate initial compliance does not 
apply. Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16, (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the owner or operator or 
the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds 
of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field 
use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a 
sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating 
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks 
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as 
outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping 
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, 
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for 
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum 
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine 
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (c) For each nonrecovery coke oven battery subject to the work 
practice standards in Sec.  63.7293(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by maintaining records that document each visual inspection 
of an oven prior to pushing and that the oven was not pushed unless 
there was no smoke in the open space above the coke bed and there was 
an unobstructed view of the door on the opposite side of the oven.
* * * * *

0
35. Section 63.7336 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7336  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission limitation in this subpart that applies to you. This includes 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must also report 
each instance in which you did not meet each work practice standard or 
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to 
you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations 
(including operating limits), work practice

[[Page 55753]]

standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. 
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7341.
    (a) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the 
start date, start time and duration (in hours) of each failure.
    (b) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (c) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.7310(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.

0
36. Section 63.7340 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7340  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a 
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status, including a summary of the performance test results, before the 
close of business on the 60th calendar day following completion of the 
performance test according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2).
* * * * *

0
37. Section 63.7341 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7341  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule, you must submit quarterly compliance 
reports for battery stacks and semiannual compliance reports for all 
other affected sources to your permitting authority according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The first quarterly compliance report for battery stacks must 
cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec.  63.7283 and ending on the last date of 
the third calendar month. Each subsequent compliance report must cover 
the next calendar quarter.
    (2) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the period 
beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected 
source in Sec.  63.7283 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever 
date comes first after the compliance date that is specified for your 
affected source. Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the 
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (3) All quarterly compliance reports for battery stacks must be 
postmarked or delivered no later than one calendar month following the 
end of the quarterly reporting period. All semiannual compliance 
reports must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or 
January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the 
semiannual reporting period.
    (4) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (b) Quarterly compliance report contents. Each quarterly report 
must provide information on compliance with the emission limitations 
for battery stacks in Sec.  63.7296. The reports must include the 
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3), and as applicable, 
paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section.
    (c) Semiannual compliance report contents. Each compliance report 
must provide information on compliance with the emission limitations, 
work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements for 
all affected sources except battery stacks. The reports must include 
the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, and 
as applicable, paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address (including county).
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report. If your report is submitted via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), the 
certifier's electronic signature during the submission process replaces 
this requirement.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period. You are no longer required to provide the date of report when 
the report is submitted via CEDRI.
    (4) Beginning on January 2, 2025, if you failed to meet an 
applicable standard, the compliance report must include, for each 
instance, the start date, start time, and duration (in hours) of each 
failure. For each failure, the compliance report must include a list of 
the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description 
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance 
requirements in Sec.  63.7333(e) for battery stacks, a statement that 
there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the 
reporting period. If there were no deviations from the continuous 
compliance requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.7333 through 63.7335 that 
apply to you (for all affected sources other than battery stacks), a 
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations, 
work practice standards, or operation and maintenance requirements 
during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring 
system (including COMS, continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), 
or CPMS) was out-of-control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a 
statement that there were no periods during which a continuous 
monitoring system was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in this subpart 
(including quench water limits) and for each deviation from the 
requirements for work practice standards in this subpart that occurs at 
an affected source where you are not using a continuous monitoring 
system (including a COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) to comply with the emission 
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (7)(i) and (ii) of this section. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the duration and cause of deviations (including 
unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the corrective action 
taken.
    (8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system 
(including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) to comply with the emission limitation 
in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(4) 
and (8)(i) through (xii) of this section. This includes periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

[[Page 55754]]

    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours that each 
continuous monitoring system (including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours that each 
continuous monitoring system (including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) was out-
of-control, including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, the 
duration in hours, and whether each deviation occurred during a period 
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration in hours of the deviation 
during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 
total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration in hours of the deviations 
during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, 
shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known 
causes, and other unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration in hours of continuous 
monitoring system downtime during the reporting period and the total 
duration of continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the 
total source operating time during the reporting period.
    (viii) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the 
affected source.
    (ix) A brief description of the process units.
    (x) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (xi) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (xii) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring 
systems, processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (xiii) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V 
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 
40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this 
subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a 
compliance report for an affected source along with, or as part of, the 
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the 
required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation 
or work practice standard in this subpart, submission of the compliance 
report satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the 
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance 
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 
deviations from permit requirements to your permitting authority.
    (f) Electronic reporting of compliance reports. Beginning on July 
7, 2026, or once the report template for this subpart has been 
available on the CEDRI website for one year, whichever date is later, 
submit all subsequent reports to the EPA via the CEDRI according to 
Sec.  63.9(k) except that confidential business information (CBI) 
should be submitted according to paragraph (h) of this section.
    (g) Electronic Reporting of Performance Tests. Beginning on 
September 3, 2024, within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results 
of the performance test following the procedure specified in Sec.  
63.9(k). CBI should be submitted according to paragraph (h) of this 
section. Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test must be submitted in a file 
format generated using the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an 
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Data collected using test 
methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's 
ERT website at the time of the test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or alternate electronic file. If a performance test consists 
only of opacity measurements, reporting using the ERT and CEDRI is not 
required.
    (h) Confidential business information (CBI). For notifications and 
reports required to be submitted to CEDRI:
    (1) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI 
available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI 
to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect 
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for 
some of the information submitted under paragraph (f) or (g) of this 
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed 
to be CBI, to the EPA.
    (2) For performance test reports according to paragraph (g) of this 
section, the file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (3) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 
to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public 
release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    (4) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address 
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI 
markings. For performance test reports, CBI should be flagged to the 
attention of, the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group; for all other 
reports and notifications, the Coke Ovens Sector Lead should be 
flagged. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files 
that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do 
not have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] 
to request a file transfer link.
    (5) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group or Coke Oven Sector 
Lead as indicated in paragraph (4) of this section. The mailed CBI 
material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings 
should not show through the outer envelope.
    (6) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (7) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with 
the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraph 
(f) or (g) of this section.

0
38. Section 63.7342 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 55755]]

Sec.  63.7342  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (5) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Beginning on January 2, 2025, records of the occurrence and 
duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of process, air 
pollution control, and monitoring equipment.
    (3) Beginning on January 2, 2025, for each failure to meet an 
applicable standard, a list of the affected sources or equipment, 
whether the failure occurred during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
and records of the start date, start time, and duration (in hours) of 
each failure to meet an applicable standard. Include an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (4) Beginning on January 2, 2025, records of the actions taken to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.7310(a), and any 
corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or 
usual manner of operation.
    (5) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and 
opacity observations as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) For each COMS or CEMS, you must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as 
required in Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
    (3) You shall keep these written procedures on record for the life 
of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer 
subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance 
evaluation plan is revised, you shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) 
versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made 
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a 
period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of 
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.  
63.8(d)(2).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, the cause of the deviation, and whether the deviation occurred 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another 
period.
    (c) You must keep the records in Sec.  63.6(h)(6) for visual 
observations.
    (d) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec.  63.7333 
through 63.7335 to show continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance 
requirement that applies to you.

0
39. Section 63.7351 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(7).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.7351  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Approval of alternatives to work practice standards for 
fugitive pushing emissions in Sec.  63.7291(a) for a by-product coke 
oven battery with vertical flues, fugitive pushing emissions in Sec.  
63.7292(a) for a by-product coke oven battery with horizontal flues, 
fugitive pushing emissions in Sec.  63.7293 for a nonrecovery coke oven 
battery, soaking for a by-product coke oven battery in Sec.  
63.7294(a), and quenching for a coke oven battery in Sec.  63.7295(b) 
under Sec.  63.6(g).
* * * * *
    (7) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

0
40. Section 63.7352 is amended by:
0
a. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``Battery waste heat 
flues'' and ``Bypass stack'';
0
b. Revising definitions of ``Coke oven battery'' and ``Coke plant'';
0
c. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``Heat and/or 
nonrecovery coke oven battery'', ``Heat recovery steam generator'', 
``Heat recovery steam generator bypass/waste heat stack'', and ``Heat 
recovery steam generator main stack'';
0
d. Revising the definition for ``Nonrecovery coke oven battery''; and
0
e. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``Pushing/charging 
machine (PCM)'', ``Total acid gases'', ``Total polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (total PAH)'', and ``Waste heat stack''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7352  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Battery waste heat flues means the channels outside the coke oven 
and between the wall separating adjacent ovens as well as each end 
wall. At any one time, half of the flues in a given wall will be 
burning gas while the other half will be conveying waste heat from the 
combustion flues to a brick heat exchanger and then on to the battery 
combustion stack.
* * * * *
    Bypass stack at a heat recovery facility means a stack through 
which emissions are discharged from a common tunnel that collects gases 
from a coke oven battery. and where the emissions are not passed 
through a heat recovery unit. Common tunnels typically are equipped 
with afterburners to further reduce organic emissions in the coke oven 
gas.
* * * * *
    Coke oven battery means a group of ovens connected by common walls, 
where coal undergoes destructive distillation to produce coke. A coke 
oven battery includes by-product and nonrecovery processes.
    Coke plant means a facility that produces coke from coal in either 
a by-product coke oven battery or a nonrecovery coke oven battery.
* * * * *
    Heat and/or nonrecovery coke oven battery means a group of ovens, 
connected by common side walls, in which coal undergoes destructive 
distillation under negative pressure to produce coke and coke oven gas 
and from which by-products are not recovered. The common tunnels 
typically contain afterburners to further reduce organic emissions in 
the coke oven gas. For nonrecovery plants (i.e., no chemical recovery) 
with heat recovery, the oven gases are vented through common tunnels to 
a heat recovery steam generator that produces steam. Heat recovery coke 
oven batteries may release oven gases through common tunnels and then 
into the atmosphere through bypass stacks when the heat recovery steam 
generators are not available due to maintenance or repair. For 
nonrecovery coke oven batteries (i.e., no chemical recovery) without 
heat recovery, oven gases are vented through common tunnels and then 
released to the atmosphere through waste heat stacks.
    Heat recovery steam generator is a process unit that recovers heat 
from coke oven gas in order to produce steam. Units typically are 
equipped with desulfurization units and baghouses to remove pollutants 
from the exhaust gases.
    Heat recovery steam generator bypass/waste heat stack means a stack 
that allows coke oven gas to be vented from the coke oven batteries 
through common tunnels and into the

[[Page 55756]]

atmosphere when there are no heat recovery steam generator units 
available for heat recovery. Common tunnels typically are equipped with 
afterburners to further reduce organic emissions in the coke oven gas.
    Heat recovery steam generator main stack means the stack that is 
the point of final discharge to the atmosphere of the gases emanating 
from a heat recovery steam generator and its control devices, which 
typically are desulfurization units and baghouses.
* * * * *
    Nonrecovery coke oven battery means a group of ovens, connected by 
common walls, where coal undergoes destructive distillation under 
negative pressure to produce coke and which is designed for the 
combustion of the coke oven gas from which by-products are not 
recovered. Also known as a heat and/or nonrecovery battery. Nonrecovery 
coke oven battery refers to units from which heat is recovered from the 
coke oven gas exhaust as well as units where heat is not recovered. 
Both heat and/or nonrecovery batteries are connected by common tunnels 
that typically include afterburners to further reduce organic emissions 
in the coke oven gas.
* * * * *
    Pushing/charging machine (PCM) means the combined coke oven pushing 
and charging machine operated on rail tracks to open an oven door, push 
the finished coke from the open oven, and close the oven door, and to 
charge the adjacent oven with coal to start the coking cycle. Typically 
used with horizontal ovens such as those at nonrecovery coke 
facilities.
* * * * *
    Total acid gases means the sum of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen 
fluoride.
    Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (total PAH) means the sum of 
acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benz[a]anthracene, 
benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, 
benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, fluoranthene, 
fluorene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, 
perylene, and pyrene.
* * * * *
    Waste heat stack at a heat and/or nonrecovery facility means a 
stack that allows coke oven gas to be vented from the coke oven 
batteries through common tunnels and into the atmosphere when there are 
no units available for heat recovery. Common tunnels typically contain 
afterburners to further reduce organic emissions in coke oven gas.
* * * * *

0
41. Revise table 1 to subpart CCCCC of part 63 to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart CCCCC of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart CCCCC

    As required in Sec.  63.7350, you must comply with each applicable 
requirement of the NESHAP General Provisions (subpart A of this part) 
as shown in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                   CCCCC?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1..........................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4..........................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.5..........................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a), (b), (c), (d),         Compliance with          Yes....................
 (e)(1)(iii), (f)(2)-(3), (g), (h)(2)-  Standards and
 (8).                                   Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.7310(a)
                                        Minimize Emissions.                               for general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Requirement to Correct   No.....................
                                        Malfunctions ASAP.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  SSM Plan Requirements..  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  SSM Exemption..........  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  SSM Exemption..........  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(9)....................  Adjustment to an         Yes....................
                                        Opacity Emission
                                        Standard.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3), (b)-(d), (e)(2)-    Performance Testing      Yes....................
 (4), (f)-(h).                          Requirements.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Performance Testing....  No.....................  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                          63.7322(a),
                                                                                          63.7324(a), and
                                                                                          63.7325(a).
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)................  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                        Performance Test Dates.                           applicability and
                                                                                          dates.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b),            Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  CMS requirements in
 (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)-(3), (c)(4)(i)-                                                       Sec.   63.8(c)(4) (i)-
 (ii), (c)(5)-(8), (d)(1)-(2), (e),                                                       (ii), (c)(5), and
 (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4).                                                                  (c)(6) apply only to
                                                                                          COMS for battery
                                                                                          stacks.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          No.....................
                                        Minimize Emissions and
                                        CMS Operation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Requirement to Develop   No.....................
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Flares are not a
                                        Requirements for                                  control device for
                                        Control Devices in                                subpart CCCCC affected
                                        Sec.   63.11.                                     sources.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  Continuous Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                        System (CMS)                                      requirements for
                                        Requirements.                                     operation of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Written procedures for   No.....................  See Sec.
                                        CMS.                                              63.7342(b)(3).
Sec.   63.8(e)(4)-(5)................  Performance Evaluations  Yes....................  Except COMS performance
                                                                                          evaluation must be
                                                                                          conducted before the
                                                                                          compliance date.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  RATA Alternative.......  No.....................  Subpart CCCCC does not
                                                                                          require CEMS.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5)....................  Data Reduction.........  No.....................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                                                                          data that can't be
                                                                                          used in computing
                                                                                          averages for COMS.
Sec.   63.9..........................  Notification             Yes....................  Additional
                                        Requirements.                                     notifications for CMS
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.9(g)
                                                                                          apply only to COMS for
                                                                                          battery stacks.

[[Page 55757]]

 
Sec.   63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(vi)-   Recordkeeping and        Yes....................  Additional records for
 (x), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-      Reporting Requirements.                           CMS in Sec.
 (6), (c)(9)-(14), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1)-                                                    63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
 (2), (e)(4), (f).                                                                        (14), and reports in
                                                                                          Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(2)
                                                                                          apply only to COMS for
                                                                                          battery stacks.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................
                                        Occurrence and
                                        Duration of Startups
                                        and Shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  See Sec.
                                        Failures to Meet a                                63.7342(a)(2)-(4).
                                        Standard.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Maintenance Records....  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)...............  Actions Taken to         No.....................  See Sec.
                                        Conform with SSM Plan.                            63.7342(a)(4) for
                                                                                          records of actions
                                                                                          taken to minimize
                                                                                          emissions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(v)................  Actions Taken to         No.....................  See Sec.
                                        Minimize Emissions                                63.7342(a)(4) for
                                        During SSM.                                       records of actions
                                                                                          taken to minimize
                                                                                          emissions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xi)-(xii).........  CMS Records for RATA     No.....................  Subpart CCCCC doesn't
                                        Alternative.                                      require CEMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Records of Excess        No.....................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                        Emissions and                                     record requirements.
                                        Parameter Monitoring
                                        Exceedances for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  Use of SSM Plan........  No.....................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)................  Periodic SSM Reports...  No.....................  See Sec.
                                                                                          63.7341(c)(4) for
                                                                                          malfunction reporting
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)...............  Immediate SSM Reports..  No.....................
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...................  Excess Emission Reports  No.....................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                                                                          reporting
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart CCCCC does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require flares.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.  Sec.   63.13-63.16.............  Addresses,               Yes....................
                                        Incorporations by
                                        Reference,
                                        Availability of
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality,
                                        Performance Track
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2024-13186 Filed 7-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P