Document rB9L01Ygk51y6mve1ManopZaq

HAP emissions of 13/F. PAH, and VOHAP from battery stacks) and surrogate standards and process combinations for five other HAP. EPA did this after realizing that it failed to propose standards for those eight previously unregulated HAP in the Proposed Rule. That EPA set numerical MACT floor limits (which SunCoke will not be able to meet) for some IIAP and process combinations while establishing surrogates and work practice standards for others without sufficient explanation is arbitrary and capricious. EPA's interpretation of LEAN is not entitled to deference. Nor is EPA's interpretation of law, as the Court's decision in Loper Brighi makes clear. [06 When EPA's overly expansive interpretation of LEAN leads it to impose unnecessary and ill-informed MACT floor limits on an industry (heat/non-recovery cokcmaking) that EPA recognizes adequately control HAP emissions, its decision is arbitrary and capricious. "[A ]s a general matter, EPA has stated that where we determine that existing standards are adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety and prevent adverse effects, it is unlikely that EPA would revise MACT standards merely to reflect advances in air pollution control technology." t"' The same should be true for a rule where EPA found that "It [here are no measurable air quality impacts from this rule that can be guaranteed," and it cannot "quantifly] any benefits associated with this final rule, because all covered facilities arc expected to already have HAP emissions levels that are below the final limits."" SunCoke is likely to prevail on the merits for several other reasons. EPA's inconsistent designation of MACTs, coupled with its failure to consider SunCoke's analyses of the errors and omissions in the ciataset used by EPA for the proposed emission limits was arbitrary and capricious. [t19 EPA's disparate treatment of the 17 HAP included in the Proposed Rule versus the eight new HAP in the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious. "[D]ecidin2 a case one way today and a substantially similar case another way tomorrow," without a reasonable explanation, is arbitrary and capricious. [ I() In fact, EPA's decision to add eight new HAP in the Final Rule also violates basic APA requirements. EPA's failure to consider the cost of achieving emissions reductions, as well as any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements when setting MACT floor-level controls based solely on emissions data from best performing sources violates CAA section 112(d)(2). For these reasons and the others set forth in this Petition, SunCokc's petition is likely to succeed on the merits. 11' 144 S. Ct. 2244. 11' 72 Fed. Reg. 5510, 5532 33 (Feb. 6, 2007). "89 Fed. Rcg. at 55723 (emphasis added) I' See Email and attachments from K. Batten, SunCoke, to I). Joncs and C French, EPA (Jan 18, 2024), Docket II) EPA-I IQ-0A R-2002-0085-1566 ' Doubleday Broad Ca. v. F(C, 655 F 2d 417, 423 (I) C Cir. 1981). 42 U S C 7607(d)(I) states that the "provisions of section 553 through 557 and section 706 of title 5 [the APA ] shall not, except as expressly provided in this subsection, apply to actions to which this subjection [307(d)] applies " See Sierra nab v .laukson, 833 F Supp 2d 11, 23-26 (I).I).C'. 2012). Notwithstanding the Petition for Reconsideration, SunCoke reserves the right to bring any argument in a judicial proceeding that it raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment - 30 - Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000109-00090 SC_EVERSPLIT0005764