provisions require testing under representative operating conditions
and exclude periods of startup and shutdown.

    As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under these
subparts should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions
during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the
owner or operator to 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 normal
operation. In 40 CFR 63.7(e), the owner or operator is required to make
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the
Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the
information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to
add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the
requirement to record the information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including a
``no'' in column 3. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.305(f)(4)(i) in
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP to reflect changes to General Provisions due
to general duty and SSM.
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery
Stacks NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7342(b)(3) text that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).'' We note that
the revisions to 40 CFR 63.305(f)(4)(i) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
will also comport to this change.
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP Applicability table (Table 1) by adding an entry
for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' in column 3. In 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i), the recordkeeping requirements during startup and
shutdown are described. In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise 40
CFR 63.311(f) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP. These recording provisions
are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping
and reporting applicable to normal operations would apply to startup
and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to
startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no
reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown
periods.
    We are proposing to revise Table 1 of Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' in column 3. In 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii), the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction
are described. The EPA is proposing to revise and add such requirements
to 40 CFR 63.7342(a)(2)-(4). We are also revising the 40 CFR 63.311(f)
to update the recordkeeping requirements in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP.
The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions and other regulatory text it is replacing in that these
provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this
requirement apply to all malfunction events requiring that the source
record the date, time, cause, and duration of the malfunction and
report any failure to meet the standard. The EPA is also proposing to
add to 40 CFR 63.7342(a)(3) and 40 CFR 63.311(f)(1)(iv) a requirement
that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, whether the failure
occurred during a period of SSM, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(f) in the Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAP. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.7342(a)(4) and 40 CFR
63.311(f)1(iv).
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(f) in Coke
oven Batteries NESHAP. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records to satisfy the
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e),
to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12).
The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans
would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. The EPA is also
proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(f) in Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP for
similar changes.

g. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(b)(2),
63.311(b)(5), 63.311(d)(2), in Coke oven Batteries NESHAP to reflect
similar changes. In 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i), the reporting requirements
for SSMs are described. To replace the General Provisions reporting
requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40
CFR 63.7341(d)(4) and 40 CFR 63.311(f)(1)(iv) and revise reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.311(b)(2), (b)(5), and (d)(2). The
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in the semiannual reporting period compliance report
already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report
would contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such
events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected
source 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. Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an
applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3 and revising the 40 CFR 63.7341(c)(4) text. We would no longer
require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to
correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans
would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore,
eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains
the description of the previously required SSM report format and
submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events would be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
Battery Stacks NESHAP General Provisions Applicability table (Table 1)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.311(b)(2),
63.311(b)(5), 63.311(d)(2), in Coke Oven Batteries to reflect similar
changes. In 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and 63.311, an immediate report is
described for SSMs when a source failed to meet an applicable standard
but did not follow the SSM plan. We would no longer require owners and
operators to report when actions taken during a SSM were not consistent
with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of coke oven
facilities, under rules for both Coke Ovens Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks NESHAP and Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP source categories,
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 docket for
this action. The proposed rule requires that performance test results
collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \44\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the quarterly and semiannual compliance reports of the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category
and the semiannual compliance certification of the Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP source category, the proposed rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\45\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 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's EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking would increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, would further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, would improve 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 would ultimately reduce 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 \46\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
agency-wide policy \47\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\48\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \47\ 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.
    \48\ 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 compliance dates are we proposing?

    The proposed date for complying with the proposed SSM changes is no
later than the effective date of the final rule with the exception of
recordkeeping provisions. For recordkeeping under the SSM, we are
proposing that facilities must comply with this requirement 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule. Recordkeeping provisions
associated with malfunction events shall be effective no later than 180
days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA is requiring
additional information for recordkeeping of malfunction events, so the
additional time is necessary to permit sources to read and understand
the new requirements and adjust record keeping systems to comply.
Reporting provisions are 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 ERT submission
requirements is 180 days after publication of the final rule. The
proposed compliance date for the revisions to the allowable limits for
leaking doors, lids, and offtakes under the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP
is 1 year after publication of the final rule. The proposed compliance
date to begin fenceline monitoring is 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 for the 15 new MACT limits (based on
the MACT floor, as described in section IV.A. of this preamble), in the
NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks is 1 year
after publication of the final rule. The proposed compliance date for
the two new BTF emission limits for HNR waste heat stacks in the NESHAP
for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks is 3 years after
publication of the final rule to allow time for the installation of
ductwork to capture large volumes of battery COE and for acquisition
and installation of control devices to treat the captured air. As
described earlier in this section, the facility that is affected by the
new BTF PM limit is located between three rivers, a state road, and a
railroad track. Therefore, due to the unique configuration of facility,
and the resulting space available to construct control devices and
ductwork to reduce arsenic emissions from bypass stacks creates an
impediment to a typical construction schedule. We estimate that the
facility will need 3 years to complete all this work and comply with
the new PM limit. Consequently, the proposed compliance date for the
BTF PM limit for waste stacks in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and
Battery Stacks NESHAP is 3 years after publication of the final rule.

G. Adding 1-bromopropane to List of HAP

    On January 5, 2022, the EPA published a final rule amending the
list of hazardous air pollutants (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, we
are evaluating whether the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112 HAP
list impacts the source category. For the Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks and Coke Oven Batteries source
categories, we conclude 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. As a result, no changes are being
proposed to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks and Coke
Oven Batteries NESHAPs based on the January 2022 rule adding 1-BP to
the list of HAP. Nevertheless, we are requesting comments regarding the
use of 1-BP and any potential emissions of 1-BP from this source
category.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    Table 10 below summarizes the proposed amendments for emission
sources at coke oven facilities. The fenceline monitoring requirement
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart L and the BTF limit for mercury (Hg) and
non-Hg metals from HNR HRSG B/W heat stacks under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart 5C are expected to require facilities to incur incremental
costs relative to current standards. The proposed lowering of leak
limits for coke oven doors, lids, and offtake systems under 40 CFR part
63, subpart L is not expected to achieve actual emission reductions but
would reduce allowable emissions.

              Table 10--Summary of the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts CCCCC and L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Emissions source           Current standard          Proposed standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 40 CFR part 63, subpart L (Coke Oven Batteries)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility-wide Fugitive Emissions...  ......................  no requirement.............  Fenceline monitoring
                                                                                work practice
                                                                                standard for benzene.
Leaking from Coke Oven Doors \a\
                                     Clairton facility.....  3.3-4% limit...............  1-1.5% limit.
                                     All other by-product    3.3-4% limit...............  3% limit.
                                      facilities.
Leaking Lids.......................  ......................  0.4% limit.................  0.2% limit.
Leaking Offtake Systems............  ......................  2.5% limit.................  1.2% limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 40 CFR part 63, subpart 5C (Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks) Regulatory Gaps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HNR HRSG B/W Heat Stacks...........  Acid gases,             no requirement.............  MACT floor limit.
                                      formaldehyde, PAHs.
                                     Hg and non-Hg metals..  no requirement.............  BTF limit (one
                                                                                facility-Vansant,
                                                                                VA); MACT limit (all
                                                                                remaining
                                                                                facilities).
HNR HRSG Main Stack................  Acid gases, Hg, PM      no requirement.............  MACT floor limit.
                                      metals, PAHs.
Coke Pushing.......................  Acid gases, hydrogen    no requirement.............  MACT floor limit.
                                      cyanide, Hg, PAHs.
By-product Recovery Battery Stack..  Acid gases, hydrogen    no requirement.............  MACT floor limit.
                                      cyanide, Hg, PM
                                      metals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The higher opacity limit applies to ``tall'' doors (equal to or greater than 6 meters); lower leak limit
  applies to other doors.

A. What are the affected sources?

    These proposed amendments to the NESHAP for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching and Battery Stacks affect sources of HAP emissions from
pushing coke out of ovens, quenching hot coke with water in quench
towers, battery stacks of oven combustion gas at ByP coke plants, and
from HRSG and HNR bypass/waste heat stacks at HNR facilities. These
proposed amendments also apply to the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries,
where the affected sources are the visible leaks from oven doors,
charging port lids, and offtake ducts; and from emissions from charging
coal into the coke ovens.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The proposed BTF MACT standards for waste heat stacks at
nonrecovery facilities in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category would achieve an estimated 237 tpy
reduction of PM emissions, 14 tpy reduction of PM2.5
emissions, 4.0 tpy reduction of nonmercury metal HAP emissions, and
0.072 tpy (144 pounds per year) reduction of mercury emissions.
    We expect that there will be no other air quality impacts due to
this proposed rulemaking (e.g., from the proposed 15 MACT floor limits
for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP
source category). However, the 15 proposed MACT floor standards would
ensure that air quality does not degrade over time.
    We also expect that there will be no air quality impacts due to
proposed reduction in allowable emissions from coke oven doors, lids
and offtakes in the Coke Oven Batteries source category, but the
proposed revised standards would ensure that air quality does not
degrade over time.

C. What are the other environmental impacts?

    Baghouses and ACI that are used to reduce air emissions of mercury
and nonmercury HAP metals from bypass waste stacks at one HNR facility
have the following environmental impacts: 15.1 million kilowatt-hour
increased electricity use and 761 tons of hazardous dust for disposal.
Baghouses and ACI are commonly used control devices for air emissions
of PM and mercury. Consequently, there is a reduction in air emissions
of 4.0 tpy nonmercury HAP metals and 144 pounds per year mercury.

D. What are the cost impacts?

    Cost impacts would occur due to the required source testing every 5
years to demonstrate compliance with the proposed MACT floor and BTF
standards for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks.
Testing costs are estimated to be $3.2 million annualized costs
including reporting and recordkeeping for the 11 operating facilities
in the source category, with an average of $290,000 per year per
facility including reporting and recordkeeping.
    Cost impacts would occur due to the control device needed to reduce
HAP emissions to meet the two BTF MACT standards. For the ACI and
baghouses used to achieve the BTF standard for mercury, capital costs
would be $314,000 for activated carbon and the injection systems and
$7.2M for the baghouses along with necessary ductwork; annual costs for
activated carbon and the injection systems would be $1.6M/yr and $3.0M/
yr for the baghouses with necessary ductwork. For nonmercury metal HAP
control, capital costs would be $7.2M for the baghouses along with
necessary ductwork and annual costs would be $3.0M/yr. Total estimated
capital costs for the BTF limit for waste heat stacks (nonmercury metal
HAP and mercury) are $7.5M, with annualized costs of $4.7M (1 affected
facility).
    Total costs for fenceline monitoring are estimated to be $116,000
per year per facility including reporting and recordkeeping and $1.3M
annually for the industry including reporting and recordkeeping (11
affected facilities).
    Total capital costs for the industry (for 1 facility) are $7.5M and
the estimated annual costs for the industry for all proposed
requirements are about $9.1M/yr (including reporting and recordkeeping)
for 11 affected facilities.

E. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the proposed
rule, which is available in the docket for this action. This proposed
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 analyzes the cost and emissions impact under
the proposed requirements, and the projected impacts are presented for
the 2025-2036 time period. The EIA analyzes the projected impacts of
the proposed rule in order to better inform the public about its
potential effects.
    If the compliance costs, which are key inputs to an economic impact
analysis, 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 economic impact analysis 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
proposal, 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 range from $8.9 million using a 7 percent discount
rate to $9.6 million using a 3 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, and the Drummond Company. 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 0.5 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
proposal are likely to be small. The EPA also conducted a small
business screening to determine the possible impacts of the proposed
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 proposed requirements.
    Details of the EIA can be found in the document prepared for this
rule titled 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 \49\ that is located in the dockets
for these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What are the benefits?

    The BTF MACT standards for waste heat stacks at nonrecovery
facilities are expected to reduce HAP emissions (with concurrent
control of PM2.5) and could improve air quality and the
health of persons living in surrounding communities. These standards
are expected to reduce 4.0 tpy of nonmercury HAP metal (including
arsenic and lead) and 144 lbs per year of mercury. These standards are
also projected to reduce PM emissions by 237 tpy, of which 14 tpy is
expected to be PM2.5. The proposed amendments also revise
the standards such that they apply at all times, which includes periods
of SSM, and may result in some unquantified additional emissions
reductions compared to historic or current emissions (i.e., before the
SSM exemptions were removed), and improve accountability and compliance
assurance. In addition, we are also proposing fenceline monitoring,
which would improve compliance assurance and potentially result in some
unquantified additional emission reductions. The risk assessment
(described in section IV.B.) quantifies the estimated health risks
associated with the current emissions, although we did not attempt to
monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. The
EPA remains committed to improving methods for monetizing HAP benefits
by continuing to explore additional aspects of HAP-related risk,
including the distribution of that risk.

G. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs EPA to identify the populations of
concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms, which are specifically minority populations, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994). Additionally, Executive Order 14096 built upon and supplemented
that order (88 FR 25,251; April 26, 2023). For this action, pursuant to
the Executive Orders, the EPA conducted an assessment of the impacts
that would result from the proposed rule amendments, if promulgated, on
communities with environmental justice concerns living near coke oven
facilities.
    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice in the Agency's actions, the Agency has carefully considered
the impacts of this action on communities with environmental justice
concerns. The EPA defines environmental justice as ``the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' \50\ The EPA further defines fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' In recognizing that
communities with environmental justice concerns often bear an unequal
burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider
ways of protecting them from adverse public health and environmental
effects of air pollution. For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts,
the EPA relies upon its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' \51\ 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 states that a regulatory action
may involve potential environmental justice concerns if it could: (1)
Create new disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; (2) exacerbate existing
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; or (3) present opportunities to
address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples through an action under
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
    \51\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category
Demographics
    The EPA examined the potential for the 14 coke oven facilities to
disproportionately impact residents in certain demographic groups in
proximity to the facilities, both in the baseline and under the control
options considered in this proposal. Specifically, the EPA analyzed how
demographics and risk are distributed both pre- and post-control under
the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack NESHAP, enabling
us to address the core questions that are posed in the EPA's 2016
Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory
Analysis. In conducting this analysis, we considered key variables
highlighted in the guidance including minority populations (including
Hispanic or Latino), low-income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples.
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,\52\ which is available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Coke Oven Facilities. C. Sarsony. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine the potential for disproportionate impacts on certain
population groups, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis, baseline
risk-based analysis (i.e., before implementation of any controls
proposed in this action), and post-control risk-based analysis (i.e.,
after implementation of the controls proposed in this action). The
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 facilities. The baseline 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 prior to the implementation of any controls proposed by
this action (``baseline''). The post-control 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 after
implementation of the controls proposed by this action (``post-
control''). 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 baseline cancer risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million from coke ovens 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, which is available in the
docket for this action.
    Under the risk-based demographic analysis, 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.
These national data are provided as a frame of reference to compare the
results of the baseline proximity analysis, the baseline risk-based
analyses, and the post-control risk-based analyses.
    The results of the category proximity demographic analysis (see
Table 11, column titled ``Baseline 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 14 Coke Oven facilities. The
percent of the population that is African American is more than double
the national average (27 percent versus 12 percent). The percent of
people living below the poverty level is almost double the national
average (22 percent versus 13 percent).
    The category baseline risk-based demographic analysis (see Table
11, column titled ``Pre-Control Baseline''), which focuses on
populations that have higher cancer risks, indicates that the
population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
due to emissions from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks source category is predominantly white (86 percent versus 60
percent nationally).\53\ The population with cancer risks greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million is above the national average for percent of
the population living below poverty (17 percent versus 13 percent) and
the percent of the population that is over 25 without a high school
diploma is almost 2 times the national average (21 percent versus 12
percent). The category post-control risk-based demographic analysis
(see Table 11, column titled ``Post-Control'') shows that the controls
under consideration in this proposal would reduce the number of people
who are exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
resulting from emissions from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category by almost 90 percent, from approximately
2,900 to 400 people. The post-control population with risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million (approximately 400 people) live within
10 km of three facilities, two located in Pennsylvania and one in
Virginia. However, over 90 percent of the 400 people with risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million are located around one facility in
Clairton, Pennsylvania. The total post-control population with risks
equal to or greater than 1-in-1 million is predominately white (96
percent). Note that there are only 26 people with post-control risks
greater than 1-in-1 million (MIR of 2-in-1 million) due to emissions
from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source
category within 10 km of the coke oven facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Note that, since there are only 57 people with a noncancer
HI greater than or equal to 1 living around one facility, we did not
conduct risk-based demographics for noncancer.

   Table 11--Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Source Category: Pre-Control and Post-Control
 Demographics of Populations Living Within 10 km of Facilities With Cancer Risk Greater Than or Equal to 1-in-1
                       Million Compared to the National Average and Proximity Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Baseline     Cancer risk >=1-in-1
                                                                            proximity    million within 10 km of
                                                                             analysis     Coke Oven facilities
                                                                               for     -------------------------
                                                               Nationwide   population
                      Demographic group                       average for     living
                                                               reference    within 10   Pre-control     Post-
                                                                            km of Coke    baseline     control
                                                                               Oven
                                                                            facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................         328M         1.3M           3K          400
Number of Facilities........................................  ...........           14            3            3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.......................................................          60%          59%          86%          96%
                                                                     197M         789K         2.5K          400
African American............................................          12%          27%          11%           2%
                                                                      40M         364K          300         <100
Native American.............................................         0.7%         0.2%         0.1%         0.0%
                                                                     2.2M         2.5K         <100            0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)............          19%          11%           1%           1%
                                                                      62M         144K         <100         <100
Other and Multiracial.......................................           8%           3%           2%           1%
                                                                      27M          44K         <100         <100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Income by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.........................................          13%          22%          17%          10%
                                                                      44M         297K          500         <100
Above Poverty Level.........................................          87%          78%          83%          90%
                                                                     284M           1M         2.4K          300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Education by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma...................          12%          14%          21%           7%
                                                                      40M         194K          600         <100
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma......................          88%          86%          79%          93%
                                                                     288M         1.1M         2.3K          400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.....................................           5%           3%           1%           0%
                                                                      18M          39K         <100            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2015-2019 ACS 5-year block group
  averages. Total population count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A
  person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located
  at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to
  estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.

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 14 coke oven facilities
in order to compare the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks 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 both before and after
implementation of the controls proposed in this action that result in
reduction of actual emissions. The whole facility risk assessment
includes all sources of HAP emissions at each facility (described in
section III.C.7. of this preamble). Note, no reduction in actual
emissions or risk is expected at the whole facility level apart from
the reduction in actual emissions and risk estimated for the proposed
standards for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks
NESHAP source category.
    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 baseline cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks 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, which is available in the
docket for this action.
    The whole-facility demographic analysis post-control results are
shown in Table 12 of this preamble. This analysis focused on the
populations living within 10 km of the coke oven facilities with
estimated whole-facility post-control cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The risk analysis indicated that all emissions
from the coke oven facilities, after the proposed reductions, expose a
total of about 575,000 people living within 10 km of the 14 facilities
to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. About 83
percent of these 575,000 people with a cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million live within 10 km of 3 facilities--2 in Alabama
and 1 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. Note that, in the baseline,
there are only 26 people with post-control risks greater than 50-in-1
million within 10 km of the coke oven facilities, therefore, the
demographics of this population is not discussed.
    When the coke oven whole-facility populations are compared to the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source
category populations in the post-control scenarios, 573,000 additional
people are estimated to have risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 14
modeled facilities based on whole facility emissions is 50-in-1
million, with COE from coke oven doors (a regulated source in the Coke
Oven Batteries source category) driving the whole facility risk.
    While the pre-control and post-control Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category population with risks
>=1-in-1 million (shown in Table 12) is disproportionately White, the
pre-control and post-control whole-facility population with risks >=1-
in-1 million (shown in Table 12) is disproportionately African
American. Specifically, the pre-control and post-control whole-facility
population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million is 26 percent African
American compared to the national average of 12 percent. In addition,
the percentage of the pre-control and post-control whole-facility
population with risks >=1-in-1 million that is below the poverty level
(17 percent) is above the national average (13 percent).

    Table 12--Whole-Facility: Pre-Control and Post-Control 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Baseline     Cancer risk >=1-in-1
                                                                            proximity    million within 10 km of
                                                                             analysis     Coke Oven facilities
                                                               Nationwide    for pop.  -------------------------
                      Demographic group                       average for     living
                                                               reference    within 10
                                                                            km of Coke  Pre-control     Post-
                                                                               Oven       baseline     control
                                                                            facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................         328M         1.4M         575K         573K
Number of Facilities........................................  ...........           14            9            9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.......................................................          60%          58%          66%          66%
                                                                     197M         805K         379K         377K
African American............................................          12%          27%          26%          26%
                                                                      40M         381K         151K         151K
Native American.............................................         0.7%         0.2%         0.2%         0.2%
                                                                     2.2M         2.5K          900          900
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)............          19%          12%           4%           4%
                                                                      62M         166K          25K          25K
Other and Multiracial.......................................           8%           3%           3%           3%
                                                                      27M          45K          19K          19K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Income by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.........................................          13%          22%          17%          17%
                                                                      44M         310K         100K         100K
Above Poverty Level.........................................          87%          78%          83%          83%
                                                                     284M         1.1M         475K         474K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Education by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma...................          12%          15%          10%           9%
                                                                      40M         206K          55K          54K
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma......................          88%          85%          90%          91%
                                                                     288M         1.2M         520K         519K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.....................................           5%           3%           1%           1%
                                                                      18M          44K           6K           6K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2015-2019 ACS 5-year block group
  averages. Total population count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A
  person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located
  at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to
  estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.

H. 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 Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category are discussed in section IV.B. and IV.C.
of this preamble. The proposed BTF limit for mercury at HNR waste heat
stacks, described in section IV.A. of this preamble, would reduce
actual and allowable mercury emissions, thereby reducing potential
exposure to children, including the unborn. Although we did not perform
a risk assessment of the Coke Oven Batteries 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 Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP under the technology
review could reduce the exposure of children to mutagens.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in specific
issues, as follows:
     Additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII.
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data;
     All aspects of cost and benefit estimates for the proposed
action;

     New methods available to reduce leaks from doors, lids,
and offtakes from coke oven batteries;
     The revised equation to estimate coke oven door leaks \39\
discussed in section IV.D.6., above, as well as the recently received
(June 27, 2023) EPA Method 303 data from two batteries at each of two
coke facilities, that are located in the dockets for the rules;
     The validity of the assumption of 2 for an acute factor;
     Establishing a 1-hour battery stack MACT standard,
including comments regarding whether or not EPA should include such a
standard in the final rule and an explanation as to why or why not;
     For fenceline monitoring, we request comment on the
following:
     The suitability of selecting benzene or other HAP,
including naphthalene and other PAH, as the indicator to be monitored
by fenceline samplers;
     Whether it would be appropriate to require multiple HAP to
be monitored at the fenceline, considering the capital and annual cost
for additional monitors that are not passive/diffusion type, and if so,
which pollutants should be monitored;
     Alternative approaches for making adjustments for off-site
contributions to the fenceline concentration of benzene; whether it is
appropriate to establish a standard time frame for compliance with
actions listed in a corrective action plan and whether the approval of
the corrective action plan should be performed by to state, local and
tribal governments;
     The proposed approach for reducing fenceline monitoring
requirements for facilities that consistently measure fenceline
concentrations below the concentration action level and the measurement
level that should be used to provide such relief;
     Suggestions for other ways to improve the fenceline
monitoring requirements; and
     The minimum time period facilities should be required to
conduct fenceline monitoring before allowing a reduction in monitoring
frequency due to low fenceline concentration levels;
     The level of performance, in terms of monitored fenceline
concentrations, that would enable a facility to reduce the frequency of
data collection and reporting; and
     The costs associated with changes in equipment or
practices resulting from an exceedance of the fenceline action level;
     Whether we have successfully ensured that the provisions
we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption;
     Whether any situations exist where separate standards,
such as work practices, would be more appropriate during periods of
startup and shutdown rather than the current standard;
     The content, layout, and overall design of the templates
for quarterly and semiannual compliance reports;
     The use of other surrogates, practices, or techniques to
determine leaks from HNR ovens, that could be applied to HNR door leaks
as an alternatives to EPA Method 303A, to include alternative
monitoring approaches or techniques. For those alternative techniques
that could be applied to measuring HNR door leaks, we are soliciting
information on equivalency studies that have been performed against EPA
Method 303 and/or 303A, and any potential training requirements.
     The use of either additional pressure transducers to
monitor for negative pressure inside HNR common tunnels and ovens
(including comments on number and placement of monitors) or a
requirement for an approved monitoring plan; or a requirement for both
additional monitors and an approved plan.
     The measures or monitoring methods for limiting soaking
emissions from ByP ovens (including the definition of soaking).
     Changes to Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP to require both leak
monitoring and pressure monitoring instead of a choice between the two,
and whether pressure monitoring should be measured at least during key
points in the whole oven cycle, possibly more often.
     Other potential approaches to establish emissions
standards for the HRSG main stacks and bypass stacks, including: (1)
whether the EPA should consider the emission points all combined (i.e.,
HRSG main stack plus HRSG bypass stack emissions) and establish
standards based on the best five units or best five facilities
including emissions following the HRSGs and their control devices and
emissions from the bypass over a period of time (e.g., per year or per
month); or (2) a standard that is based in part on limiting the number
of hours per year or per month that bypass stack can be used.
     The accuracy of revenue and employment data included in
the EIA;
     The accuracy of the cost-to-sales ratios calculated in the
EIA and whether the BTF limit for Hg and non-Hg metals could put
SunCoke's Vansant facility at risk of closure;
     Other ongoing rulemaking efforts (such as integrated iron
and steel manufacturing, taconite iron ore processing) that may impact
facilities in this source category and the cumulative regulatory burden
of rules affecting these facilities;
     Potential interactions between this proposed action and
potential timelines and changes to facilities installing carbon capture
and/or using hydrogen, or how the regulation might affect steel
decarbonization efforts; and
     Potential impacts, if any, on: U.S. manufacturing, the
creation or retention of jobs (and the quality of those jobs) and
supply chains; National Security; renewable and clean energy projects;
projects funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and
Science Act; aerospace manufacturing; telecommunications; critical
infrastructure for national defense, and global competitiveness.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the source category websites at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission, or https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information
for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities and sources in
the source categories.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).

    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 (through
the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the source category websites 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.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, 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 economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis, 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, is available in the dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information
collection request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared have been
assigned EPA ICR numbers 1995.09 and 1362.14. You can find a copy of
the ICRs in the dockets for this rule, and they are briefly summarized
here.
    We are proposing amendments to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP that require compliance testing for 15 MACT
and 2 BTF limits and to the Coke Oven Battery NESHAP that require
fenceline monitoring. Furthermore, the amendments also require
electronic reporting and remove the SSM exemptions in both NESHAPs. 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 Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery
Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) (OMB Control Number 2060-0521).
    Respondents/affected entities: Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and
Battery Stacks source category.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 14 facilities.
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAPs is estimated to be 32,500 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the
requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be $4,230,000 (per year),
of which $1,060,000 (per year) is for this proposal, and $3,043,000 is
for other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAPs in
addition to $125,000 for the operation and maintenance of leak
detectors and continuous opacity monitors. The total rule costs reflect
an overall increase of $1,280,000 (per year) from the previous ICR due
to the compliance with 17 additional MACT/BTF limits, transition to
electronic reporting, and elimination of SSM requirements.
    For ICR: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries (40 CFR part 63, subpart L)
(OMB Control Number 2060-0253).
    Respondents/affected entities: Coke Oven Batteries source category.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart L).
    Estimated number of respondents: 14 facilities.
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAPs is estimated to be 63,000 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the
requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be $7,795,000 (per year),
of which $530,000 (per year) is for this proposal and $7,410,000 is for
other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAPs. The total
rule costs reflect an increase of $1,070,000 (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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than September 15, 2023.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. 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 1,500 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 proposal 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 document prepared for this rule titled 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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any 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. Due to control of mercury and nonmercury metal HAP at
waste heat stacks at nonrecovery facilities, we believe the health of
children living nearby would be improved. This action's health and risk
assessments for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack
source category are contained in section IV. of this preamble and
further documented in The Residual Risk Assessment or the Coke Ovens:
Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack Source Category in Support of the
2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket
for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085). However, EPA's Policy on
Children's Health applies to this action.
    Although we did not perform a risk assessment of the Coke Oven
Batteries 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 Coke Oven Batteries
NESHAP under the technology review could reduce the exposure of
children to mutagens.
    Information on how this policy was applied is available under
``Children's Environmental Health'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this preamble.

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 because energy use is
projected to increase by only 15 million kilowatt-hours to operate
control devices to achieve the proposed air emissions reductions in HAP
metals (see section V.C. of this preamble, ``What are the other
environmental impacts?'').

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 Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching,
and Battery Stacks NESHAP and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries
through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also
contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
For Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP, we conducted searches for EPA Methods
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 voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA
Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 22, 303, and 303A. For Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, Battery Stacks 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 Method 160.1 in 40 CFR part 136.3, appendix A,
EPA Methods 316 and 320 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. No applicable
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G,
5D, 316, and 160.1.
    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 proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10-1981--Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.'' The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B
for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas.
This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is
available from ASME at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
This method determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of
exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases
covered in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons, however the use
in this rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide.
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D7520-16,
``Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the
Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' which is an instrumental method to
determine plume opacity in the outdoor ambient environment as an
alternative to visual measurements made by certified smoke readers in
accordance with EPA Method 9. The concept of ASTM D7520-16, also known
as the Digital Camera Opacity Technique or DCOT, is a test protocol to
determine the opacity of visible

emissions using a digital camera. This method is based on previous
method development using digital still cameras and field testing of
those methods. The purpose of ASTM D7520-16 is to set a minimum level
of performance for products that use DCOT to determine plume opacity in
ambient environments.
    The DCOT method 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. This 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 ASTM D7520-16 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at
[email protected].
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6420-18,
``Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' which provides on-site
analysis of extracted, unconditioned, and unsaturated (at the
instrument) gas samples from stationary sources. The ASTM D6420-18
method employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer
to identify and quantify 36 volatile organic compounds (or sub-set of
these compounds). The ASTM method incorporates a performance-based
approach, which validates each analysis by placing boundaries on the
instrument response to gaseous internal standards and their specific
mass spectral relative abundance; using this approach, the test method
may be extended to analyze other compounds.
    This ASTM D2460-18 method 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. It 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. The ASTM D6420-
18 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610)
832-9500, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at [email protected].
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference 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)'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29
(portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring mercury.

    Note:  This applies to concentrations approximately 0.5-100 mg/
Nm\3\.

    The ASTM D6784-16 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at
[email protected].
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-
12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 320. This ASTM method is an FTIR-based field
test method used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple
target analytes from stationary source effluent. The method provides
near real time analysis of extracted gas samples from stationary
sources. The method employs an extractive sampling system to direct
stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the
identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. The test method
is potentially applicable for the determination of compounds that (1)
have sufficient vapor pressure to be transported to the FTIR
spectrometer and (2) absorb a sufficient amount of infrared radiation
to be detected.
    In the 9/22/08 NTTA summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined
equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 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.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-12e1 ``Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
(FTIR) Spectroscopy'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at
this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the
standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the following
conditions must be met:
     The test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D 6348-12e1, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
     In ASTM D6348-12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5).
    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:

Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in Stack)/(%R) x 100

    The ASTM D6348-12e1 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number: (610) 832-

9500, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at [email protected].
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found in the memorandum titled 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, available in the EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0051 dockets for this proposed rule.
    The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV:
Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/
B-08-002). This EPA document is dedicated to meteorological measurement
systems and their support equipment, and is designed to provide clear
and concise information and guidance to the State/Local/Tribal air
pollution control agencies that operate meteorological monitoring
equipment and systems. New monitoring rules require that meteorological
data be collected at all National Core network stations, as stated in
the CFR Chapter 40 Section 58, Appendix D.3.b. Thus, there is a need
for updated information to guide agencies as they implement the new
network. Since the last version of Volume IV was written, there have
been a number of breakthroughs in instrument development and support
equipment, which are reflected in this revision (2.0). A copy of this
handbook can be obtained from the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100FOMB.txt or from the dockets to these rules (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051).

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on communities with environmental justice concerns.
    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.G. 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 (26
percent) African American compared to the national average (12 percent
African American). About 83 percent of the 575,000 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 likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns. The impacts of these proposed rules are to limit
allowable emissions from coke ovens sources in 40 CFR part 63, subparts
CCCCC and L. In addition, proposed BTF standards for HNR waste heat
stacks would limit actual emissions for mercury and nonmercury metal
HAP \26\ from these sources.
    While the proposed measures do not significantly decrease the
number of those below the poverty level and those over 25 years of age
without a high school diploma who have risks greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from pushing, quenching, and
battery stacks sources (Table 12), the proposed standards for the Coke
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category achieve a
reduction in the disparity for these groups (Table 12). Specifically,
of the people living within 10 km of a coke oven facility with risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from the
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category, the
percentage who are below the poverty level is estimated to decrease
from 17 percent to 10 percent under the proposed standards and the
percentage who are over 25 without a high school diploma is estimated
to decrease from 21 percent to 7 percent under the proposed standards.
The EPA also is proposing that coke oven facilities conduct fenceline
monitoring for benzene and report these data electronically to the EPA
so that it can be made public and provide fenceline communities with
greater access to information about potential emissions impacts.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in section V.G. of this preamble and in the document Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities
located in the dockets for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0051) and described above in section V.G.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-16620 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P