Document gaj6ErByGQb8Xp3Op2mwxJXxq

MACT floor limits, also referred to as floor-based emission limits, for the 17 HAP and processes EPA identified in the Proposed Rule.31 SunCoke commented that LEAN does not require EPA to set MACT floor limits for every I TAP, particularly those that are already controlled to an adequate margin of safety. It only requires that EPA "address" all HAP known to be emitted by a source category.'' As SunCoke explained, the court in LEAN provides that "because the [CAA] necessitates section 1 12-compliant emission standards for each source category, and section 112(d)(6) requires EPA at least every eight years to review and revise emission standards `as necessary,' EPA's section 112(d)(6) review of a source category's emission standard must address all listed air toxics the source category emits."39 Put simply, it is not necessary to establish MACT floor-based standards where EPA found through its Risk and Technology Review (RTR) that risks due to the I IAP 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 "arc no developments in practices, processes or control technologies that necessitate revision of standards for this source category"4u as it did here. In the Final Rule, EPA rejected SunCoke's comments and adopted MACT floor limits for all 17 I IAP and processes identified in the Proposed Rule, again citing the LEAN decision as requiring However, EPA treated other HAP differently in the Final Rule. In the Final Rule, EPA identified eight HAP that it failed to include in the Proposed Rule perhaps because EPA was rushing to meet the May 23, 2024 court deadline.42 For the omitted I IAP, EPA established a MACT floor work practice standard of "good combustion for three unregulated I IAP (the organic I TAP emissions of DiF. PAH, and VOHAP from battery stacks) and surrogacy determinations for the other Five."43 EPA determined that it could use work practice standards and surrogacy determinations, instead ofnumeric illACLIToor limit.~', because "many of the test runs were BDI. and seven of the eight had a majority of test runs BDI.."44 But many of the tests for the other 17 HAP were also "below the detection limit." EPA does not explain why it read LEAN in the Proposed Rule to require MACT floor limits for all HAP, but not in the Final Rule. For the eight ITAP it left out of the Proposed Rule, EPA determined that LEAN allowed it to use surrogates and work practices instead of the MACT floor limits it insisted were required for thel7 HAP, which also present minimal risk. The APA does not allow EPA to insist that LEAN requires it to establish MACT floor limits for 17 ITAP, but does not require the same for eight other I TAP, when the risk profile is the same.`' "[D]ecidin2 a case one way today and a substantially similar case another way tomorrow,"46 88 Fed. Reg. at 55707. 55876 n.25. 'SunCoke comment letter, pp. 26 27. 1') LEAN, 955 F.3d at 1091 (emphasis added). 41' 88 Fed Reg at 55858. 4- 89 Fed. Reg. at 55711 ("LEAN thus requires that the EPA promulgate from a source category are regulated "). 4? Id 4' Id 89 Fed Rcg at 55707. Doubleday Broad. Co v. , 655 F 2d 417, 423 (I).C'. Cir. 1981). '4( Id as many limits as needed' so that all pollutants -7 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000109-00067 SC_EVERSPLIT0005741