```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 556-591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32933]

[[Page 555]]

Vol. 77

Thursday,

No. 3

January 5, 2012

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Secondary Lead Smelting; Final Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 556]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344; FRL-9610-9]
RIN 2060-AQ68

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Secondary Lead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
conducted for the secondary lead smelting source category regulated 
under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. These 
final amendments include revisions to the emissions limits for lead 
compounds; revisions to the standards for fugitive emissions; the 
addition of total hydrocarbon and dioxin and furan emissions limits for 
reverberatory and electric furnaces; the addition of a work practice 
standard for mercury emissions; the modification and addition of 
testing and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; 
related notifications; and revisions to the regulatory provisions 
related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.

DATES: This final action is effective on January 5, 2012. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 5, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet, and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West 
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. Nathan Topham, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 
(919) 541-0483; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address: 
topham.nathan@epa.gov. For additional contact information, see the 
following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding the risk 
assessment and exposure modeling methodology, contact Dr. Michael 
Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C504-06), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-7524; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email 
address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For information about the 
applicability of this NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the 
appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.

                      Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         NESHAP for                       OECA contact \a\                          OAQPS contact \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting.....  Maria Malave, (202) 564-7027,             Nathan Topham, (919) 541-0483,
                               malave.maria@epa.gov.                     topham.nathan@epa.gov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\b\ EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
D/F dioxins and furans
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
lbs/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OP Office of Policy
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppbw parts per billion by weight
ppmv parts per million by volume
ppmw parts per million by weight
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR Risk and Technology Review
SRF short rotary furnace
TEF toxic equivalency factor
TEQ toxic equivalency quotient
THC total hydrocarbons
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
WWW World Wide Web

    Background Information Document. On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 29032), the 
EPA proposed revisions to the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP based on 
evaluations performed by the EPA in order to conduct our risk and 
technology review. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and 
revisions for the rule. Some of the significant comments and our 
responses are summarized in this preamble. A summary of the public 
comments on the proposal not presented in the preamble, and the EPA's 
responses to those comments, is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344. A tracked changes version of the regulatory language that 
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What is the affected source?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

[[Page 557]]

    D. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting source category?
    B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 
112(f)
    B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section 
112(d)(6)
    C. Other Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a Measure of Acceptability of 
Risk for Public Health
    B. Total Enclosure Requirements
    C. Work Practice Standard Requirements
    D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP From Rotary Furnaces
    E. The EPA's Risk Assessment Supporting the Proposed Rule
    F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text
    G. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency
    H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 2 of this preamble.

 Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    NAICS \a\   MACT \b\
            NESHAP and source category                 Code       Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Lead Smelting...........................     331492       0205
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

    Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility would be affected, you should examine 
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. As defined in the 
source category listing report published by the EPA in 1992, the 
Secondary Lead Smelting source category is defined as any facility at 
which lead-bearing scrap materials (including, but not limited to lead 
acid batteries) are recycled by smelting into elemental lead or lead 
alloys.\1\ For clarification purposes, all reference to lead emissions 
in this preamble means ``lead compounds'' (which is a hazardous air 
pollutant) and all reference to lead production means elemental lead 
(which is not a hazardous air pollutant) as provided under CAA section 
112(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List--Final Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect 
of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 
of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

B. What is the affected source?

    The final rule applies to owners and operators of secondary lead 
smelters. The affected source for this subpart is any of the following 
sources at a secondary lead smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and 
electric furnaces; refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; dryers; 
process fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing lead bearing 
materials; and fugitive dust sources. A new affected source is any 
affected source at a secondary lead smelting facility of which the 
construction or reconstruction commenced after May 19, 2011. If 
components of an existing affected source are replaced such that the 
replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and 
the reconstruction commenced on or after May 19, 2011, then the 
existing source becomes a reconstructed source and is subject to the 
relevant standards for a new affected source. The reconstructed source 
must comply with the requirements for a new affected source upon 
initial startup of the reconstructed source, or by March 5, 2012, 
whichever is later.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed and promulgated rules at the following address: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.html. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Additional information is available on the residual risk and 
technology review (RTR) web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and 
detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the risk 
assessments.

D. Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action 
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 5, 2012. 
Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final 
rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

[[Page 558]]

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and 
the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, 
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has identified categories of 
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), 
section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, 
any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy 
or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-
based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions 
of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
    For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements 
and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). 
For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the 
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled 
similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less 
stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must 
also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, 
under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA 
section 112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; and/or are 
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two 
different analyses, as required by the CAA: section 112(d)(6) of the 
CAA calls for us to review these technology-based standards and to 
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years; and within 8 years after promulgation of the 
technology standards, CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the 
risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-
based standards and to revise the standards, if necessary, to provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, 
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors, an adverse environmental effect. In doing so, the EPA may 
adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines 
that the existing standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 
529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
    On May 19, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart X that took into consideration the residual risk and technology 
review (RTR) analyses. Today's action provides the EPA's final 
determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for 
the Secondary Lead Smelting source category, and also promulgates 
first-time standards under section 112 (d)(2) (MACT) for certain 
hazardous air pollutants emitted by secondary lead smelters. 
Specifically, we are taking the following actions:

     Revising some requirements of the NESHAP related to 
control of metal HAP emissions based on our risk assessment and 
technology reviews.
     Finalizing first-time total hydrocarbon (THC) and 
dioxin and furan (D/F) emissions limits and a plastic separation 
work practice standard to prevent dioxin formation.
     Finalizing work practice standards for mercury.
     Revising the requirements in the NESHAP related to 
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM).
     Incorporating the use of plain language into the rule.
     Addressing technical and editorial corrections in the 
rule.

III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead Smelting 
source category?

    EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead Smelting on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 
32216). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X. The 
secondary lead smelting industry consists of facilities that recycle 
lead-bearing scrap material, typically lead acid batteries, into 
elemental lead or lead alloys. The source category covered by this MACT 
standard currently includes 16 facilities, including one facility that 
is not currently operating and one facility that is in the process of 
being constructed.
    This section describes the final amendments to the secondary lead 
smelting NESHAP.\2\ These revisions include changes to the stack and 
fugitive metal HAP emission standards, the addition of new THC and D/F 
emission limits, the addition of a work practice standard to separate 
plastics from automotive batteries to prevent dioxin emissions, the 
addition of work practice standards to minimize mercury emissions, and 
changes to the requirements that apply during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction. In addition to these changes described 
below, we are making minor changes to the regulatory text to correct 
editorial errors and to make plain language revisions. We have 
evaluated the cost, emissions reductions, energy implications and cost 
effectiveness of all of the standards being promulgated in this final 
rule and have determined that these measures are cost effective, 
technically feasible and will provide the public with an ample margin 
of safety from exposure to emissions from the secondary lead smelter 
source category. See Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the 
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in the 
docket, for information on the costs and cost effectiveness of each of 
the standards being promulgated in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Note that the EPA is reprinting portions of the language 
from the 1997 NESHAP here so the entire rule appears in one place, 
for readers' convenience. The EPA is not amending, reopening or 
otherwise reconsidering these reprinted portions of the 1997 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Stack and Fugitive Metal HAP Emission Standards
    For the reasons provided in Section IV.A of this preamble and in 
the support documents in the docket, we have determined that the risks 
associated with emissions from this source

[[Page 559]]

category are unacceptable primarily due to fugitive emissions of lead. 
We have further determined that there have been developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions 
to the MACT standard (i.e., the standards promulgated pursuant to 
section 112(d)(2) and (3)) for this source category. Therefore, to 
satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f), we are 
revising the MACT standard to include:
     A facility wide, flow weighted average lead \3\ emissions 
limit from stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm and an individual stack lead 
emissions limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for each stack at existing sources. For 
new sources, a lead emissions limit of 0.20 mg/dscm applies to each 
individual stack at a modified or ``greenfield'' new facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Throughout this preamble, all references to lead emissions 
means lead compounds as listed by Congress at section 112(b)(1) of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A requirement for the facility to operate sources of 
fugitive lead emissions within total enclosures that are maintained 
under negative pressure and vented to a control device. These sources 
of fugitive emissions include the smelting furnaces, smelting furnace 
charging areas, lead taps, slag taps, molds during tapping, battery 
breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, material handling 
areas, and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used 
fabric filters are processed. The facilities are also required to adopt 
a list of specified work practice standards to minimize fugitive 
emissions.
2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards
    To satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are also 
revising the MACT standard to include first-time D/F and THC emission 
limits (with THC serving as a surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP). 
These emission limits are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.

           Table 3--Summary of New THC and D/F Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          D/F Emission     THC Emission
              Source type                  limit \a\        Limit \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and Existing Collocated Blast and              0.50           \c\ 20
 Reverberatory Furnaces...............
Existing Blast Furnaces...............              170          \c\ 360
New Blast Furnaces....................               10           \c\ 70
New and Existing Reverberatory and                  1.0               12
 Electric Furnaces....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ng/dscm on a TEQ basis, corrected to 7 percent O2.
\b\ ppmv as propane, corrected to 4 percent CO2.
\c\ Emission limit is unchanged from 1997 NESHAP.

3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC 
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (2010). Specifically, the 
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 
CFR 63.6(h)(1), that was part of a regulation, commonly referred to as 
the ``General Provisions Rule'', that the EPA promulgated under CAA 
section 112. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for 
specific source categories, these two provisions exempted sources from 
the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 
112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption for secondary lead smelting 
facilities in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA 
has established standards in this rule for all periods of operation. We 
have also revised Table 1 to subpart X (the General Provisions table) 
in several respects. For example, we have eliminated that incorporation 
of the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM 
plan. We have also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and 
reporting that related to the SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to 
ensure that we have not included in the regulatory language any 
provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the 
absence of the SSM exemption.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has established different standards for non-dioxin organic HAP 
during those periods.
    Information on periods of startup and shutdown in the industry 
indicate that lead emissions during these periods do not increase 
(consistent with our engineering judgment that lead emissions would not 
increase during these periods because lead-bearing feed is not being 
smelted during these periods). Furthermore, all lead-emitting processes 
are controlled by either control devices or work practices and these 
controls would not typically be affected by startup or shutdown. 
Therefore, the EPA is not adopting separate lead-emission standards for 
periods of startup and shutdown.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Since startup and shutdown refers to the smelting process, 
and not to ancillary management activities, there are no startup and 
shutdown standards for process fugitive emissions since startup and 
shutdown do not occur for the activities generating such emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has revised this final rule to require sources to meet a 
work practice standard that requires the development of standard 
operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC for each 
start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated for all units subject to THC 
limits. Temperature monitoring is the metric used to determine 
continuous compliance with emission standards for THC. This metric is 
inappropriate as a measure of the destruction efficiency of these 
organic pollutants during periods of startup and shutdown.
    The EPA is not including a standard for dioxins and furans during 
periods of startup and shutdown. This is because dioxins and furans 
will not be emitted during those periods. During startup and shutdown, 
scrap feed materials (including chlorinated plastics and flame 
retardants) that contain the precursors needed for dioxin formation are 
not introduced into the smelter \5\ so there are no conditions that 
could give rise to dioxin and furan emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Shutdown'' is defined as a period ``when no lead bearing 
materials are being fed to the furnace and smelting operations have 
ceased * * *''. Section 63.542 (definition of ``shutdown'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA determined that it is not technically and economically 
feasible for units subject to THC limits to perform stack testing for 
this pollutant during periods of startup and shutdown due to technical 
and economic

[[Page 560]]

impracticality associated with testing secondary lead smelting furnaces 
during these periods. The furnaces are heated during periods of startup 
through slow feeding of natural gas and small amounts of coke, with no 
lead acid batteries fed to the furnace during these periods. Test crews 
would have to be on-site prior to a period of startup or shutdown 
occurring and may need to break up a single test over multiple startups 
or shutdowns, the length of which could vary depending on the type of 
secondary lead smelting furnace being tested, that would happen 
infrequently to gather enough data to complete a three-run test. See 
also section V.G of this preamble discussing these standards further.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA 
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods 
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 
standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must 
be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled 
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less 
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best 
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the 
EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent 
with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the 
agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 
uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best performing'' unit in 
defining the level of stringency that section 112 performance standards 
must meet. Applying the concept of ``best controlled'' or ``best 
performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning presents significant 
difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' 
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 
1999) (EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of 
data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.) We generally defer to an 
agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific 
information, rather than to ``invest the resources to conduct the 
perfect study''. See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 
(DC Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general limit, individual 
permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset 
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory 
limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties', such as 
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise 
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in 
advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal of a best-controlled 
or best-performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid 
malfunctions of the source and accounting for malfunctions could lead 
to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels that are 
achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's 
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a 
reasonable interpretation of the statute. In section 3.2.1 of the 
separate response to comment document, we respond to comments that 
emissions during malfunctions should be accounted for in assessing risk 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2).
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy 
on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (February 15, 1983).) The EPA is therefore adding to the 
final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of 
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.542 
(defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an 
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and 
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also have added other 
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to 
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set 
forth in 63.552 (see 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an 
exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow definition of 
malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable 
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless 
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative 
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner 
* * *.'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken 
to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 
CFR 63.552 and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source 
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were 
made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission 
limitations were being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps 
were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient 
air quality, the environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial 
or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the 
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met 
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with CAA 
section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.27).

[[Page 561]]

    The EPA is including an affirmative defense in the final rule in an 
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air 
regulations, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously 
recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits 
may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source. 
The EPA must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, 
rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 
basis'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation and emission 
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (DC 
Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112 
emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for 
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where 
there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable 
through injunctive relief. While ``continuous'' limitations, on the one 
hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many 
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical 
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 
486 F.2d 427, 433 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit acknowledged that in 
setting standards under CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as 
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment 
malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the 
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the `never to 
be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement 
Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir. 1973). Though 
intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 
amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they support 
the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of 
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for 
a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be 
beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative 
defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a 
Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 
formalized approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the 
permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th 
Cir. 1977). But see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 
(DC Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The 
affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both 
ensure that its emission limitations are ``continuous'' as required by 
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 
reasonableness of the standard as a whole.

B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on January 5, 2012. For the MACT standards being 
addressed in this action, the compliance date for the revised SSM 
requirements is the effective date of the standards, January 5, 2012. 
The compliance date for existing sources for the revised stack lead 
emission limit and the revised fugitive emission standard including the 
requirement to adopt work practice standards and install total 
enclosures for specified process fugitive emission sources, and for the 
new D/F and THC emission limits, is 2 years from the effective date of 
the standard, January 6, 2014. New sources must comply with the all of 
the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, 
January 5, 2012, or upon startup, whichever is later.

C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    In this action, as a step to increase the ease and efficiency of 
data submittal and improve data accessibility, the EPA is requiring the 
electronic submittal of select performance test data. Specifically, the 
EPA is requiring owners and operators of secondary lead smelting 
facilities to submit electronic copies of performance test reports 
required under 40 CFR 63.543 to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 
database was constructed to store performance test data for use in 
developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is 
available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective 
reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many 
other purposes including compliance determinations, emission factor 
development, and annual emission rate determinations. In conducting 
these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time 
consuming, not only for us, but also for other regulatory agencies and 
for source owners and operators, to locate, collect, and submit 
performance test data because of varied locations for data storage and 
varied data storage methods. In recent years, though, stack testing 
firms have typically collected performance test data in electronic 
format, making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal 
system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal 
and improve data accessibility.
    One major advantage of submitting performance test data through the 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is a standardized method to compile and 
store much of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. 
Another advantage is that the ERT clearly states what testing 
information would be required. Another important benefit of submitting 
these data to the EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that 
it should substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection 
activities in the future. When the EPA has performance test data in 
hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data collection 
requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk 
assessments or technology reviews. This results in a reduced burden on 
both affected facilities (in terms of reduced labor to respond to data 
collection requests) and the EPA (in terms of preparing and 
distributing data collection requests and assessing the results).
    State, local, and tribal agencies can also benefit from a more 
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them. 
The ERT allows for an electronic review process rather than a manual 
data assessment making review and evaluation of the data and 
calculations easier and more efficient.
    As mentioned above, data entry will be through an electronic 
emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool or 
ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report which will be submitted 
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 
The submitted report is transmitted through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making 
submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the 
ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and 
CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and would 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data 
entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A 
listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is 
available at http://

[[Page 562]]

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. We believe that industry will 
benefit from this new electronic data submittal requirement. Having 
these data, the EPA will be able to develop improved emission factors, 
make fewer information requests, and promulgate better regulations. The 
information to be reported is already required for the existing test 
methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test 
method.
    Finally, another benefit of submitting data to WebFIRE 
electronically is that these data will greatly improve the overall 
quality of the existing and new emission factors by supplementing the 
pool of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by 
ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry 
operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and 
regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not representative 
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation 
of data from most performance tests, the EPA will be able to ensure 
that emission factors, when updated, represent the most current range 
of operational practices. In summary, in addition to supporting 
regulation development, control strategy development, and other air 
pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated 
with performance test data will save industry, state, local, tribal 
agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while 
improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air 
quality regulations.

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 112(f)

    In the proposed rulemaking, the EPA presented a number of options 
for additional controls on the Secondary Lead Smelting source category. 
In that notice, the EPA solicited comment on the proposed options as 
well as on all of the analyses and data upon which the options were 
based, including the risk methods and results presented in the draft 
document: Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting 
Source Category.
    During the public comment period for the proposed rule, several 
parties submitted comments and suggested revisions regarding the 
emissions used for the risk assessment, and also submitted other 
information relevant to the risk assessment (see docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0344 for all public comments). After considering these 
submissions, the EPA revised its analyses. Revised methods, model 
inputs, and risk results are presented in the report: Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, a discussion 
of the updated emissions information used in the final risk assessment 
can be found in the memorandum titled: Development of the RTR Emissions 
Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which can also 
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Considering the updated emissions information received during the 
public comment period for the proposed rule, our final risk analysis 
estimates that the primary NAAQS for lead, used in this rule as a 
measure of acceptable risk from air-borne lead emissions, could be 
exceeded at 9 of 15 facilities based on actual emissions, largely due 
to fugitive dust emissions (see Table 4). At these 9 facilities, 
fugitive dust emissions account for about 94 to 99 percent of the 
estimated 3-month maximum lead concentrations.\6\ Our analysis also 
estimates that approximately 200 people live in areas around three of 
these facilities where 3-month maximum lead concentrations are 
estimated to be between one and three times above the lead NAAQS. 
Allowable stack emissions of lead also resulted in modeled 
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS, with modeled lead ambient air 
levels as high as 8 and 10 times above the NAAQS. This analysis also 
estimates that 3-month maximum lead concentrations from a secondary 
lead smelter could be up to about 20 times the NAAQS for lead based on 
actual emissions. The maximum lead exceedances at populated census 
block centroids were between one and three times the NAAQS. There is 
some uncertainty associated with the fugitive emissions estimates that 
is derived from the uncertainty involved in determining the 
housekeeping and enclosure factors. This uncertainty could have 
important impacts on the estimated fugitive emissions and the resulting 
modeled ambient concentration. For example, if the level of control 
assumed through the use of full enclosure and robust housekeeping were 
both increased from 75 percent to 85 percent, the estimated fugitive 
emissions at the RSR facility would be about 43 pounds (roughly three 
times lower than those estimated in this rule). If the level of control 
assumed through the use of full enclosure and robust housekeeping were 
both decreased from 75 percent to 65 percent, the estimated fugitive 
emissions at the RSR facility would be about 240 pounds (roughly two 
times higher than those estimated in this rule). As shown in this 
example, changing the estimates of control efficiency achieved with 
full enclosure and robust housekeeping practices by 10 percent each 
could impact the resulting fugitive emission estimates for facilities 
employing that level of control by two to three times. These estimates 
could significantly impact the resulting risk estimates since most of 
the impact of lead emissions was due to fugitive dust emissions. While 
there are uncertainties associated with estimating fugitive emissions, 
we conclude that the methodology used in this rulemaking provided 
reasonable estimates of fugitive emissions for these sources. For 
further details, see Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the 
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0344, which describes how we developed these fugitive 
emissions estimates and provides a presentation of our estimates 
compared to estimates submitted via the ICR and estimates reported to 
the TRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For all facilities, the percent contribution of fugitive and 
stack emissions to modeled ambient lead concentrations has only been 
estimated for the model receptor representing the site of maximum 
lead impact.

[[Page 563]]

    Table 4--Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum Ambient Lead Concentrations Considering Actual
                                                   Emissions a
                                        [Rolling 3-month average values]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Highest
                                                                                     modeled lead  Concentration
            Facility name                        City                  State        concentration    is X times
                                                                                     ([mu]g/m\3\)    the NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Company-Buick Mill...........  Boss....................  MO                         2.36             20
Sanders Lead Co......................  Troy....................  AL                         2.16             10
Exide Corporation....................  Vernon..................  CA                         1.14              8
Battery Recycling Co.................  Arecibo.................  PR                         0.76              5
Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc............  Tampa...................  FL                         0.38              3
Exide Technologies-Canon Hollow Plant  Forest City.............  MO                         0.47              3
Gopher Resource Corp.................  Eagan...................  MN                         0.35              2
Frisco Battery Recycling.............  Frisco..................  TX                         0.23              2
Exide Tech/Reading Smelter...........  Reading.................  PA                         0.25              2
Quemetco, Inc........................  Industry................  CA                         0.17              1
Exide Technologies...................  Muncie..................  IN                         0.15              1
Exide Technologies/B R Smelter.......  Baton Rouge.............  LA                         0.14              1
Revere Smelting & Refining Corp......  Middletown..............  NY                         0.10            0.7
Quemetco, Inc........................  Indianapolis............  IN                         0.07            0.5
East Penn Mfg. Co Inc/Smelter Plt....  Lyon Station............  PA                         0.02            0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values of 1 or less in the last column indicate that modeled lead concentrations are at or below the NAAQS
  for lead.

    We also note that there were changes to our cancer, acute, and PB-
HAP multipathway case study analyses (see section 3.4 of the risk 
assessment document) for non-lead HAP as a result of the updated risk 
assessment performed for the final rule. With respect to our updated 
cancer risk assessment, we estimate that the maximum individual risk 
(MIR) of cancer due to actual emissions is 50 in a million 
predominantly due to fugitive dust emissions of arsenic and cadmium as 
compared to the analysis at proposal of risk of 50 in a million but 
based on a different secondary lead facility. Moreover, approximately 
700 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 10 in a million 
and approximately 80,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks 
above 1 in a million considering all facilities in this source category 
(as compared to the analysis at proposal of 1,500 above 10 in a million 
and 128,000 above 1 in a million). In addition, the MIR due to MACT 
allowable emissions remains 200 in a million predominantly from stack 
emissions of arsenic. The updated worst-case acute hazard quotient (HQ) 
value is 20 at two facilities (based on the REL for arsenic; the REL is 
the only available acute health benchmark value for arsenic and all 
other pollutants had HQ values less than or equal to 1), driven by both 
stack and fugitive dust emissions of arsenic (as compared to analysis 
at proposal of an acute HQ value of 30 based on the REL for arsenic at 
one facility driven by emissions from stacks). Finally, the risk 
assessment supporting the final rulemaking estimates that the cancer 
MIR values from both multipathway case study analyses (i.e., in Frisco, 
TX and Middletown, NY; see section 3.2 of the final risk assessment 
document) are less than 1 in a million (as compared to an estimated 
multipathway MIR of 30 in a million and less than 1 in a million in the 
Frisco, TX and Middletown, NY multipathway case study analyses for the 
proposed rule). Notably, the reduction in multipathway risks resulted 
from updated emissions information received during the public comment 
period with respect to these facilities.
    Taking into account all the results of the final risk assessment, 
and similar to the proposed rulemaking, we conclude that risks to 
public health due to emissions from this source category are 
unacceptable. Our conclusion is primarily based on risk from exposure 
to air-borne lead emissions but also considers other risk metrics such 
as cancer and non-cancer risks associated with actual and allowable 
stack emissions of non-lead HAPs, especially arsenic and cadmium. As 
mentioned above, actual lead emissions resulted in modeled 
concentrations of lead above the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 facilities. 
Thus, we note that allowable stack emissions of lead and other HAP 
metals and fugitive emissions of lead must be reduced to assure that 
lead concentrations in ambient air beyond the facility fenceline are 
acceptable--that is, do not exceed the lead NAAQS (the measure of risk 
acceptability for exposure to air-borne lead in this rule). The fact 
that maximum individual cancer risks due to actual emissions are above 
1 in a million also contributes to our determination of 
unacceptability, but to a lesser extent. While the estimated maximum 
individual cancer risks due to actual emissions would, by themselves, 
not generally lead us to a determination that risks are unacceptable, 
the fact that they occur along with the exceedences of the lead primary 
NAAQS adds to our concern about these exposures, and further supports 
our proposed determination that risks are unacceptable. To provide 
acceptable levels of risk with an ample margin of safety, we are 
finalizing the requirement that secondary lead smelting facilities must 
operate the following fugitive dust emissions sources within total 
enclosures that must be maintained at negative pressure at all times 
and vented to a control device designed to capture lead particulate: 
Smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag 
taps, molds during tapping, battery breakers, refining kettles, casting 
areas, dryers, material handling areas managing lead bearing materials, 
and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric 
filters are processed. As further described in Section IV.C of this 
preamble, based on public comments, we are not adopting the proposed 
alternative to demonstrate compliance by monitoring lead at or near the 
property boundary based on a 3-month rolling average in lieu of 
constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR 29056.) We are finalizing the 
proposed requirement for facilities to conduct fugitive emission work 
practices as well

[[Page 564]]

as to enclose fugitive emission sources. As further described in 
Section IV.C of this preamble, we are also promulgating a revised list 
of required work practices based on a number of comments received 
regarding the necessity, efficacy, and safety of the work practices 
which the EPA proposed.
    We are also finalizing the proposed requirement limiting stack lead 
emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions average and 
limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 mg/dscm.
    After implementation of the controls required in this final rule, 
we estimate that there will be no one living at a census block centroid 
exposed to ambient concentrations above the NAAQS due to these 
facilities and the cancer MIR due to actual emissions will decrease 
from 50 in a million to 7 in a million.

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section 
112(d)(6)

    Based on the technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA 
proposed to change the stack lead emission limits from 2.0 mg/dscm for 
any individual stack to a facility-wide, flow-weighted average emission 
limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a limit of 1.0 mg/dscm applicable to any 
individual stack. The proposed limit was based on emissions data 
collected from industry, which indicated that well-performing baghouses 
currently used by much of the industry are capable of achieving outlet 
lead concentrations significantly lower than the limit of 2.0 mg/dscm 
adopted in the 1997 MACT standard. We have considered the public 
comments on this issue and are adopting the limits as proposed.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also proposed a fugitive emission 
standard requiring operation of the following process fugitive emission 
sources in total enclosures that are maintained under negative pressure 
at all times and vented to a control device: Smelting furnaces, 
smelting furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag taps, and molds during 
charging, battery breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, 
agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps, material 
handling areas for any lead bearing materials, and areas where dust 
from fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric filters are processed. 
This proposed requirement was based on information collected from the 
industry that indicated that several operating facilities currently 
enclose most or all of their process fugitive emission sources, and 
that the ambient lead concentrations near these facilities are 
significantly lower than those facilities that do not have enclosures. 
We have considered the public comments on this issue, and have decided 
to adopt the requirements largely as proposed. This requirement is 
identical to that adopted to eliminate unacceptable risk for fugitive 
emissions pursuant to CAA section 112 (f)(2). However, as described in 
Section IV.C of this preamble, based on public comments, we are not 
adopting the proposed alternative to demonstrate compliance by 
monitoring lead at or near their property boundary based on a 3-month 
rolling average in lieu of constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR 
29056.) We are finalizing the proposed requirement for facilities to 
conduct fugitive emission work practices as well as to enclose fugitive 
emission sources. As further described in Section IV.C of this 
preamble, we are also promulgating a revised list of required work 
practices based on a number of comments received regarding the 
necessity, efficacy, and safety of the work practices which the EPA 
proposed.
    We are also finalizing the requirement limiting stack lead 
emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions average and 
limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 mg/dscm as 
proposed.
    We note that although we have adopted the same standards under both 
CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on 
independent statutory authorities and independent rationales. 
Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable.

C. Other Changes Since Proposal

    We received over 30 public comments on the proposed rule. After 
considering these comments, we are making the following additional 
changes to the proposal. The rationale for these and any other 
significant changes can be found in this preamble and in the comment 
response document available in the docket.
1. Stack Emission Limits
     The EPA is not adopting numerical limits for THC and D/F 
emissions from rotary furnaces pending further data-gathering and 
analysis for this furnace type.
     For units constructed after June 9, 1994, the EPA is 
adding a limit for THC and D/F for collocated blast and reverberatory 
furnaces when the reverberatory furnace is not operating, and is 
amending the D/F limits for blast furnaces for units that commenced 
construction after June 9, 1994. We also added a THC and D/F new source 
limit for blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction 
after May 19, 2011.
2. Definitions
     Definitions have been added for ``affected source'' and 
``new source'' to clarify when the standards for new sources would 
apply.
     A definition of ``lead-bearing material'' has been added 
to the rule to clarify requirements for material handling area 
enclosures and work practices for fugitive emissions.
     The definition of ``material storage and handling'' has 
been revised to exclude transfer of raw materials in enclosed 
containers.
     The definition of ``plant roadway'' has been revised to 
exclude roadways inside total enclosures.
     The definition of ``process vent'' has been revised to 
specify that it includes only vents from lead processing equipment and 
from buildings containing lead bearing material.
     Definitions for ``leeward,'' ``windward,'' and ``natural 
draft opening'' have been added to the rule to clarify the differential 
pressure and monitoring requirements and the requirement to maintain an 
inward flow of air through enclosure openings.
     The definition of ``total enclosure'' was modified by 
specifically including modified text from 40 CFR 265.1101 and EPA 
method 204 ``Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary 
Total Enclosure'' rather than citing the reference to the requirements 
for a hazardous waste containment area. We also clarified the 
requirement for total enclosures to be vented to a control device 
designed to capture lead particulates.
3. Enclosure Requirements
     The proposed requirement to maintain an in-draft velocity 
of 300 feet per minute at enclosure openings (see 76 FR 29072) was 
replaced with a requirement to maintain an inward flow of air through 
all natural draft openings.
     The proposed requirement for a back-up power source for 
the differential pressure monitors required for the total enclosures 
(see 76 FR 29077) was eliminated, and a reporting requirement was added 
to identify periods when the power was lost to the monitoring system.
     The proposed rule (see 76 FR 29072) has been modified to 
clarify that activities required for inspection of fabric filters and 
maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and replacement are 
not required to be conducted inside of total enclosures.

[[Page 565]]

     Lead ingot product handling, storm water and wastewater 
treatment, intact battery storage areas, and clean battery casing 
plastic handling activities are not subject to the total enclosure 
requirement.
4. Fugitive Emission Work Practice Requirements
     The proposed maintenance requirements (see 76 FR 29073) 
have been modified to allow emergency repairs of ductwork or structure 
leaks to occur outside of enclosures if the time to construct a 
temporary enclosure would exceed the time to make a temporary or 
permanent repair. The proposed rule has been modified to extend the 
deadline for required maintenance and repair on total enclosures to one 
week after identification of any gaps, breaks, separations, leak points 
or other possible routes for emissions of lead to the atmosphere. The 
final rule also clarifies that once an item that is not otherwise 
subject to total enclosure requirements has been cleaned, its 
maintenance is no longer subject to the enclosure requirement.
     The proposed rule has been edited to allow for existing 
control devices to treat the ventilation from temporary enclosures 
constructed for maintenance purposes if the device and its permit 
account for increased airflow and emissions for this activity.
     The roof washing proposed work practice (see 76 FR 29073) 
has been removed from the list of required fugitive emission work 
practices.
     The specific proposed water application rate of 0.48 
gallons per square yard (see 76 FR 29073) has been removed from the 
road washing requirement.
     The proposed battery storage area inspection frequency 
(see 76 FR 29073) has been changed from twice per day to once per week 
to maintain consistency with inspection frequency required under other 
regulatory programs.
     The proposed requirement to collect wash water in a 
container that is not open to the atmosphere (see 76 FR 29073) has been 
removed.
     The proposed rule (see 76 FR 29073) has been revised to 
clarify that lead-bearing dust must be collected and transported within 
closed conveyor systems or in sealed, lead-proof containers while other 
lead bearing material must be contained and covered in a manner that 
prevents spillage or dust formation.
     The proposed requirement for cleaning after an accidental 
release (see 76 FR 29073) has been clarified to include only those 
releases that exceed the CERCLA reportable quantity for lead (e.g., 10 
pounds).
5. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
     The performance testing requirements (see 76 FR 29074) 
have been modified to allow facilities to use EPA Method 12 or Method 
29 for lead compounds.
     A provision was added allowing for biannual testing of 
lead compounds and THC for sources that demonstrate concentrations that 
are less than 50 percent of the applicable limit.
     An exemption was provided for THC testing if a facility 
has installed and is using a THC CEMS.
     The time between D/F testing (see 76 FR 29072) was changed 
from once every 5 years to once every 6 years, in anticipation that 
most facilities would be on a biannual testing schedule for lead and 
THC, and this schedule would allow coordination of the two required 
tests.
     The conditions for the performance tests (see 76 FR 29072) 
were changed from ``under such conditions as the Administrator 
specifies * * *'' to ``maximum representative operating conditions for 
the process''.
     The EPA also added a provision stating that sources which 
operate a HEPA filter or WESP system downstream of a primary 
particulate (lead) control device are not subject to a bag leak 
detection system (BLDS) requirement.
6. Other Changes
     A provision was added for sources to develop procedures to 
minimize emissions of THC limits during periods of startup and 
shutdown.
     We modified the proposed plastic separation work practice 
requirement (see 76 FR 29072) to include only plastic battery casing 
materials from automotive batteries (which comprise the vast majority 
of input plastics).
     The proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements were 
revised to be consistent with the other changes made to the rule.
    A tracked changes version of the regulatory language incorporating 
the changes in this action is available in the docket. Additionally, a 
summary of the public comments that are not in the preamble can be 
found in the comment response document available in the docket.

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a Measure of Acceptability of Risk for 
Public Health

    Commenters from both the environmental and industry sectors 
challenged the EPA's use of the lead primary NAAQS as a measure of 
acceptability of risk in this rule. The EPA disagrees with these 
comments. The EPA has reasonably applied the lead primary NAAQS as a 
measure of evaluating acceptability or unacceptability of risk from 
exposure to lead emissions from sources in this category. The lead 
primary NAAQS targets protection to children living near sources, such 
as secondary lead smelters, who are exposed at the level of the 
standard--the population most sensitive to the health impacts of these 
emissions. Moreover, using the lead primary NAAQS to assess 
acceptability of risk does not amount to an impermissible 
implementation of the lead primary NAAQS as industry commenters would 
have it. Full responses to these comments are found in the Response to 
Comment Document for this rulemaking, available in docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0344.

B. Total Enclosure Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters supported a requirement for total 
enclosures of enumerated sources of fugitive emissions. Some of those 
commenters did not support the alternative that would have allowed 
ambient monitoring in lieu of total enclosures.
    According to one commenter, ``The purpose of establishing emission 
standards and control technology regulations is to reduce, by 
empirically proven technical means, the release of hazardous air 
pollutants into the atmosphere.'' The commenter therefore recommended 
that the EPA require enclosures in all instances to limit fugitive 
emissions.
    According to another commenter, ``The non-cancer and cancer risk 
reductions associated with total enclosures of all lead bearing 
processes to reduce fugitive emissions are clearly demonstrated for all 
facilities in the post control scenario contained in the residual risk 
assessment. These benefits also have been observed based on our 
experience with total enclosures that are under negative pressure and 
vented to air pollution controls. * * * The annual geometric mean of 
lead measured [in ambient air near the facility] dropped from a high of 
0.71 [mu]g/m\3\ (1987) to 0.06 [mu]g/m\3\ (1993) after all of the point 
source

[[Page 566]]

and fugitive emission controls were in place. The benefits of requiring 
total enclosures as demonstrated by the ambient monitoring results were 
clearly apparent to the Department and surrounding community. Based on 
that experience, we do not support the alternative of allowing partial 
enclosures with an air monitoring requirement option in this 
rulemaking.''
    Another commenter stated ``We do not support allowing partial 
enclosures with an air monitoring requirement option, since the total 
enclosures have been shown to be extremely effective in reducing 
fugitive emissions of lead and the other metal HAPs from these 
sources.''
    One commenter indicated that neither proposed alternative (total 
enclosure or the ambient monitoring alternative) complies with CAA 
section 112(d)(6) but did state that ``additional health risk 
reductions would occur if a facility used total enclosure.'' This 
commenter also stated that the EPA should require total enclosures and 
work practice standards beyond those included in the proposed rule to 
control fugitive dust emissions of arsenic and cadmium and achieve 
reductions in cancer and non-cancer risks from these pollutants.
    Alternatively, one commenter disagreed that total enclosure is the 
most effective method to reduce emissions. According to the commenter, 
``Capturing emissions from secondary lead smelting sources at the point 
of emission and controlling such emissions through the use of baghouses 
equipped with secondary HEPA filtration systems represents a better 
alternative to constructing and maintaining total enclosures around 
secondary lead smelting sources.''
    Response: As explained at 76 FR 29059 in the proposed rule and 
below, the EPA is amending the NESHAP for fugitive emissions of lead 
both because these emissions pose an unacceptable risk under CAA 
section 112(f) and because it is technically appropriate and necessary 
to do so pursuant to section 112(d)(6). With respect to what changes to 
adopt, we agree with those commenters who argued that total enclosures 
maintained under negative pressure are the most effective means by 
which to reduce fugitive emissions. Facilities in this source category 
that implement total enclosures as a means of controlling fugitive 
emissions are able to achieve significantly lower ambient lead 
concentrations near the boundaries of their facilities, as clearly 
demonstrated in the Summary of Ambient Lead Monitoring Data Around 
Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities document available in docket ID EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0344. About half of the existing facilities currently have 
such full enclosures, and a few other facilities are currently 
constructing such enclosures. The prevalence of total enclosures in the 
secondary lead smelting source category suggests that this measure is 
cost effective and it is clearly technically feasible. There is more 
certainty that fugitive emissions are well controlled through the use 
of total enclosures than would exist with the proposed alternative to 
use fenceline ambient monitoring. The work practice standards in the 
final rule have been revised from those proposed to ensure that there 
are no requirements that pose safety hazards, are unnecessary to 
achieve emission reductions, or result in duplicative burden on 
regulated facilities. The work practice standards in the final rule are 
already implemented at some of the facilities.
    Furthermore, we assumed at proposal that total enclosures would be 
required at all facilities regardless of which option they chose. The 
facilities that do not operate total enclosures are unlikely to achieve 
fenceline ambient concentrations at or below the lead primary NAAQS. 
The monitoring data just mentioned and the ICR responses indicated that 
the facilities which have totally enclosed their processes are 
generally achieving ambient concentrations substantially lower than 
those which have not totally enclosed. Since we based our analysis at 
proposal on the assumption that all facilities would have to construct 
total enclosures and assumed that the rule would impose those costs on 
all sources which have not yet installed total enclosures, our cost 
analysis has already accounted for the cost of total enclosure. See 76 
FR at 29064 and the cost impacts memo that supported the proposed rule 
(docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0040 at page 8). The total enclosure 
requirements in section 63.544 ensure that process fugitive emissions 
sources and other fugitive dust emissions sources will not generate 
fugitive emissions that escape the facility uncontrolled. The work 
practice standards for process fugitive emissions sources and fugitive 
dust emissions sources in section 63.545 ensure that fugitive dust is 
not generated outside of total enclosures and that fugitive dust 
generated inside total enclosures is not carried outside of those 
enclosures.
    We note that one commenter's statements appear to pertain to 
process fugitive emissions from secondary lead smelters that are 
captured by enclosure hoods and vented to a control device. We agree 
that enclosure hoods near sources of process fugitive emissions (e.g., 
lead taps, charging hoppers, etc.) can be an effective method to 
control emissions from these sources. We also recognize that these 
devices are important to minimize exposure of workers to lead dust. 
However, we note that the enclosure hoods are not 100 percent effective 
at controlling these emissions, and that process fugitives that are 
amenable to control with hoods are not the only source of fugitive 
emissions from secondary lead processes. We thus disagree that 
enclosure hoods without total enclosures represent a better alternative 
for controlling all fugitive emissions.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring monitoring of 
both building pressure differential and the in-draft velocity at 
building openings for the total enclosures and stated that the 
duplicate monitoring requirements are redundant and unjustified. The 
commenters also requested that the EPA abandon its proposed specific 
minimum velocity requirement at doorway openings or lower the proposed 
requirement of 300 feet per minute. Two commenters stated that ``A 
number of the existing total enclosures in this industry do not meet 
the proposed 300 feet per minute in-draft velocity requirement, and 
their modification to achieve 300 feet per minute would require 
substantial expenditures.'' One commenter stated that much larger 
volumes of air would be exhausted from the smelter buildings and that 
``the greater the volume of air exhausted, the greater the emissions of 
lead. Therefore increasing exhaust volumes above current levels could 
possibly have negative impacts.'' The commenters requested an exemption 
from demonstration of compliance with the in-draft requirements for 
access points that are normally closed. One commenter requested 
clarification of the use of the terms ``leeward'' and ``windward'' in 
the context of the differential pressure monitoring.
    One commenter stated that they have demonstrated that none of these 
total enclosure monitoring requirements and continuous monitoring 
systems are necessary to reduce actual emissions of HAP. The commenter 
recommended continued compliance with the original 1997 NESHAP, which 
requires facilities to demonstrate that total enclosures were 
maintained under constant negative pressure by maintaining process 
enclosure hoods at the prescribed face velocities. As an alternative, 
measurements of face velocity at doorways and windows and pressure 
measurements at prescribed intervals would provide a viable monitoring 
option.

[[Page 567]]

    Response: We agree with the commenters that monitoring of both 
building differential pressure and in-draft velocity at building 
openings is unnecessary. However, we disagree that continuous 
monitoring of differential pressure is overly prescriptive. We believe 
that monitoring of building differential pressure is the most accurate 
means by which to ensure that the building is under negative pressure 
at all times. This method provides direct measurements that the 
building is indeed maintained at negative pressure. Some commenters 
stated persuasively that specifying doorway velocities could require 
substantial additional in-draft, which could cause strain to building 
structures, wind chill problems for workers, and pilot lights being 
extinguished. We have therefore not adopted the proposed requirement to 
measure in-draft velocity at the openings of the total enclosures but 
have retained the continuous differential pressure monitoring 
requirement. However, we have altered the differential pressure 
requirement from 0.02 mm of mercury to 0.013 mm of mercury to be 
consistent with EPA Method 204's criteria for verification of a 
permanent or temporary total enclosure. With regard to the comment that 
increased volumes of air exhausted through control devices would 
increase overall emissions, it is unclear to us how directing 
previously uncontrolled fugitive emissions through a fabric filter 
would increase the overall emissions from a structure.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring a back-up power 
source for the differential pressure monitors. According to the 
commenters, during a power outage, the ``negative pressure would not be 
maintained and the pressure drop monitors would simply be measuring and 
documenting this known and predictable fact * * *. The same information 
could be obtained by requiring facilities to note periods when power 
has been lost to the ventilation fans such that negative pressure could 
not be maintained.'' One commenter recommended requiring an 
uninterruptible power supply for the control device as well as the 
total enclosure monitoring system or removing the current requirement.
    Response: We agree with the commenters' assessment that a back-up 
power source for the building differential pressure monitors is not 
needed. We also agree with the commenters' suggestion to include a 
recordkeeping provision for power outages that occur for the building 
ventilation systems. The regulatory text has been edited accordingly.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the enclosure requirement 
at all areas where fabric filters are handled or processed. One 
commenter stated that ``This is impractical in that all baghouses are 
not and cannot be located within enclosures. Therefore, in the 
replacement of used bag filters, there will always be a point in which 
the bags must be handled in order to get them into a closed container 
for transport.'' Two commenters stated that ``The first point at which 
used fabric filters are `handled' is upon removal from the baghouse 
cell, usually on a catwalk running along the side of the baghouse. It 
is not appropriate to require all such areas to be placed within total 
enclosures. Best practices in the industry when replacing fabric 
filters are to place the used filter bags in sealed plastic bags or 
other closed containers in the cell while the filters are being 
replaced, but prior to removing the used filters to the catwalk.''
    Response: We agree that the proposed requirement to enclose all 
areas where fabric filters are handled or processed may be impractical 
at times, the enclosure of a catwalk being an example. We also agree 
that fabric filters cannot be enclosed under the circumstances 
described in these comments. We have therefore revised the regulatory 
text to require used fabric filters to be placed in sealed plastic bags 
or containers before removal from the baghouse cell.

C. Work Practice Standard Requirements for Fugitive Emissions

    Comment: Several industry respondents expressed concern about the 
proposed requirement to perform all maintenance activities for any 
equipment potentially contaminated with lead bearing material inside an 
enclosure.
    Two commenters requested clarification that once an item that is 
not already subject to total enclosure requirements has been cleaned, 
its maintenance or repair is not subject to the enclosure requirements. 
Both commenters also gave an example of circumstances where the best 
course of action would be to make an immediate repair on a leak in an 
elevated duct rather than wait until a temporary structure was 
constructed. One commenter expressed concern that inspection and 
maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and replacement 
would need to be performed within a total enclosure.
    Two commenters stated that 72 hours to make repairs to any gaps or 
leak points in enclosures or structures was not feasible to implement. 
One commenter suggested that the rule ``be changed to require 
initiation of repairs within 24 hours of discovery and completion of 
repairs as soon as practicable. Rather than seeking and obtaining 
approval for extensions from the Administrator, the source should be 
required to file and to keep a record listing when the problem was 
discovered, when the repair was initiated and when the repair was 
completed.'' Another commenter stated that ``the presence of leak 
points is irrelevant to collection as long as the size and location of 
these leak points does not change over time. Once a facility documents 
that any total enclosure criteria (for negative pressure) are met, the 
presence of existing leak points is irrelevant.''
    One commenter requested that the EPA allow facilities to route 
emissions from partial or temporary enclosures to control devices that 
meet the performance requirements stated in the rule. According to the 
commenter, ``This compliance option is requested, because as written, 
the provisions would require manufacturer's specification alone and not 
allow use of an otherwise compliant control device.''
    Response: With regard to the comment that the proposed maintenance 
practices were overly prescriptive, we have revised the regulatory text 
to require performance of maintenance ``in a manner that minimizes 
emissions of fugitive dust'' that includes several options to control 
fugitive emissions. With regard to the comment pertaining to inspection 
and maintenance of fabric filters, we have edited the regulatory text 
such that this enclosure requirement does not apply to inspection and 
maintenance practices for fabric filters.
    We also agree with commenters that making prompt and timely repairs 
for leaks is often more effective than first constructing a total 
enclosure around the leak. However, we believe that the formulation to 
initiate repairs ``as soon as practicable'' is too vague. We have 
edited the regulatory text to require completion of repairs to 
enclosures within one week and inserted language allowing facilities to 
initiate immediate repairs of ductwork or structure leaks without an 
enclosure provided that the time necessary to construct a temporary 
enclosure would exceed the time necessary to make a temporary or 
permanent repair. This change ensures that the requirement is 
technically practicable and the most cost-effective means for fixing 
leaks while minimizing the period during which the leak causes 
emissions.

[[Page 568]]

    We disagree with the commenter that the presence of a leak point is 
irrelevant to collection as long as the size and location of these leak 
points do not change over time. Total enclosures are designed with 
openings of specific size and location to provide appropriate airflow 
into a building and to maintain the negative pressure at all locations. 
Multiple leak points at different locations of non-uniform size would 
be difficult to measure and document. It would also be difficult to 
ensure that the building negative pressure is uniform at all locations.
    We agree with the commenter that facilities should be allowed to 
route emissions from partial temporary enclosures to existing control 
devices that meet the performance specification stated in the rule 
provided the control device has the capability to accommodate the 
additional air flow and that its permit accounts for the additional air 
flow and emissions. The regulatory text has been edited accordingly.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the 
requirement in the proposed rule for cleaning of building rooftops. The 
commenters stated that the EPA did not provide a basis to demonstrate 
that roof washing is effective or necessary. One commenter stated that 
roof cleaning was unnecessary to operate in compliance with the current 
lead NAAQS, and that current work practices are sufficient to meet the 
standard. Several commenters also stated that roof cleaning is 
potentially dangerous to workers and in some cases not possible due to 
the rooftop construction and weather conditions. Several commenters 
noted that the requirement unnecessarily applied at all times, even 
when natural precipitation makes cleaning unnecessary.
    Response: We agree that the proposed roof washing requirement may 
not be feasible and may cause worker safety hazards in some cases, and 
we have therefore removed this activity from the list of required 
fugitive emission work practices.
    Comment: Several commenters opposed the specific requirement for a 
mobile vacuum sweeper used for pavement cleaning when a water flush is 
used. The commenters stated that the EPA provides no justification for 
the minimum water application rate of 0.48 gallons per square yard of 
pavement cleaned or evidence that equipment currently used could 
achieve this rate. The commenters suggested that this specific 
requirement be replaced with a ``requirement that pavement be 
periodically cleaned, leaving methods, and minimum water application 
rates to individual facilities and, as relevant, their permitting 
authorities.'' According to the commenter, ``EPA should further exempt 
pavement cleaning on days when natural precipitation makes cleaning 
unnecessary or when sand or a similar material has been spread on plant 
roadways to provide traction on ice or snow.''
    Two commenters also expressed concerns that the rule requires 
pavement cleaning in the battery breaking, furnace, refining and 
casting areas when a total enclosure is not used. According to the 
commenters, certain locations within these areas are not capable of 
being cleaned on a routine basis due to safety, access, or other 
reasons. The commenters give an example of paved areas under process 
equipment as being an area that is not safe to access during operation 
of the equipment. One commenter also stated that roadway cleaning and 
washing of truck tires and undercarriages are redundant requirements 
with no incremental benefit.
    Response: We agree with the commenters' suggestion to remove the 
minimum water application rate requirement from the regulatory text. We 
note that the proposal did include an exemption for cleaning on days 
when natural precipitation makes cleaning unnecessary or when sand or a 
similar material has been spread on plant roadways to provide traction 
on ice or snow. That exemption remains in the final rule. See 40 CFR 
63.545(c)(2).
    With regard to the comments regarding pavement cleaning 
requirements when total enclosures are not used, we note that the final 
rule requires total enclosures rather than including them as an option. 
Furthermore, it is our understanding that in the cases where mobile 
sweeping or wet washing equipment is not feasible (e.g., underneath 
process equipment), facilities can utilize hand held vacuum equipment 
to clean these areas. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to 
exempt these areas from the cleaning requirements since these areas 
contain fugitive lead which can be emitted and reach human and 
environmental receptors.
    We disagree with the commenter that roadway cleaning and 
undercarriage washing are redundant requirements. While truck tires may 
be a significant source of lead bearing material on the roadway, we 
understand that they are not the only source. Therefore, we have 
maintained both requirements in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter recommended modifying the requirement to 
pave ``all areas subject to vehicle traffic'' to ``all areas subject to 
routine vehicle traffic.'' The commenter noted that areas not subject 
to routine traffic do not have the potential to generate significant 
quantities of fugitive dust and that paving these areas would increase 
the amount of storm water generated.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that there may be some 
instances where paving and cleaning a roadway is impractical. We have 
included an exemption in the rule for limited access and limited use 
roadways that access remote, infrequently used locations on the 
facility's property. See 40 CFR 63.545(c)(2).
    Comment: Two commenters objected to the proposed frequency of 
inspection of the unenclosed battery storage areas. One commenter 
``finds this requirement to impose an administrative burden of minimal 
value.'' According to the commenter, ``Spent lead acid batteries, even 
if accidentally broken and leaking, pose minimal potential for 
generation of fugitive dust containing HAPs. Inspection of these areas 
is typically required on a weekly basis as part of the facilities' 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act obligations and such frequency 
is sufficient to satisfy the intent of this proposed rule as well.'' 
One commenter suggests that identifying and mitigating leaks within 72 
hours will prevent generation of fugitive lead emissions. The commenter 
also states that it is unclear whether batteries stored in partial 
enclosures are exempted from the twice daily inspection requirement and 
proposes the following regulatory language incorporating both of these 
issues.

    You must inspect any batteries that are not stored in a partial 
or total enclosure once each day and move any broken batteries to a 
partial or total enclosure within 72 hours of detection. You must 
also clean residue from broken batteries within 72 hours of 
identification. Storage of batteries in trucks and railcars 
consistent with Department of Transportation requirements are 
specifically exempted from these requirements.

    Response: We agree with the commenters that requiring inspection of 
these areas on a twice daily basis is not necessary. We have modified 
the regulatory text to require inspection of these areas once per 
week--consistent with requirements implementing the hazardous waste 
subtitle of RCRA (see 40 CFR 264.174 and 264.1101(c)(4) (and the EPA 
sees no reason to deviate from these long-standing requirements here, 
given that they were adopted to be ``protective of human health and the 
environment'' from management of hazardous waste)--with removal of

[[Page 569]]

broken batteries within 72 hours of detection. We have also clarified 
that the inspection requirement does not apply to battery storage areas 
that are in a total enclosure. We do not believe that an exemption for 
storage of batteries in trucks and railcars is necessary since the 
inspection frequency was reduced to once per week.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement to collect wash 
water in a container that is not open to the atmosphere. The commenter 
stated that ``Covering of these collection tanks is not necessary 
because lead dissolved and/or suspended in water does not have a 
pathway for becoming a fugitive emission.''
    Response: We agree with the commenter that so long as the contents 
in the container are wet, there should be no fugitive emissions. We 
have removed the requirement to collect wash water in a sealed 
container.
    Comment: Two commenters requested changes to the requirement to 
transport lead bearing materials in sealed leak-proof containers. One 
commenter proposed that containers be ``covered'' rather than ``sealed 
leak-proof'' and that an exemption be made for off-road dump trucks. 
The suggestion was made because ``sealed leak-proof containers * * * 
cannot be attained, but covers can be for most trucks used in such 
transport * * *. no approved sealing covers are made for the 30-ton, 6-
wheel, off-road dump trucks used at the facility.'' One commenter 
supported the requirement for transporting lead bearing materials 
within an enclosure or in a sealed container, but suggested that lead 
bearing materials with little potential for production of fugitive lead 
dust from transportation should be excluded, including intact 
batteries, raw materials with lead content that is not considered 
recoverable such as iron, caustic, coal, wood, sulfur and other similar 
materials, and products from the recycling process.
    Response: We agree that the proposed requirement for material 
transport should be modified. The intent of the proposed requirement 
was to prevent fugitive lead dust formation outside of a total 
enclosure. We have therefore modified the requirement at 63.545(c)(7) 
to read as follows:

    ``You must transport all lead bearing dust within closed 
conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof containers, unless the 
transport activities are contained within an enclosure. All other 
lead bearing material must be contained and covered for transport 
outside of a total enclosure in a manner that prevents spillage or 
dust formation. Intact batteries and lead ingot product are exempt 
from the requirement to be covered for transport.''

    The definition of lead bearing material in the rule clarifies that 
lead bearing materials must contain at least 100 ppm of lead (measured 
via Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (EPA Method 1311) lead 
test results l). Intact batteries and lead ingot product are 
excluded from this requirement.
    Comment: Some commenters agreed that the secondary lead facilities 
operate a separation process at their battery breakers to separate 
polypropylene battery case material as a valuable recyclable commodity. 
However, not all spent lead acid batteries are amenable to separation. 
Certain battery types such as small sealed-lead-acid batteries and 
certain industrial lead-acid batteries are fed into the blast furnace 
without ever passing through the facility's battery breaker. These 
batteries are either too small or too large to be broken by the 
automated battery breaking equipment. One commenter requested that the 
EPA estimate the cost of the systems that would be required. Another 
commenter offered that mandatory separation could be used for 
facilities that are not meeting TEQ limits as one of several options to 
reduce emissions. Two commenters stated that the current dioxin 
emission levels pose no incremental health risk presented by background 
dioxin and that there is no valid justification for imposing this 
burden.
    Response: Based on these comments, we have revised the proposed 
plastics separation work practice requirement to be specific to 
automotive batteries, which should be amenable to separation based on 
current practices used in the industry. We agree with the commenters 
that some industrial batteries are not easily processed in battery 
breakers and that the retrofits or additional equipment required to 
process such batteries are not justified since automotive batteries 
make up the vast majority of lead acid batteries processed at these 
facilities. We believe that plastics separation from automotive 
batteries is sufficient to minimize emissions of organic HAP. We 
further note that the use of battery breakers to separate plastics from 
automotive batteries is clearly a development in practices that limits 
emissions of organic HAP, including dioxin, and is therefore an 
appropriate part of a standard under CAA section 112(d)(6).

D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP From Rotary Furnaces

    Comment: We received several comments on the proposed D/F and THC 
MACT floor limits for the rotary furnace subcategory that were based on 
data (two test runs, see 76 FR at 29049) from the slag-processing 
rotary furnace at RSR's Middletown, NY facility. One commenter stated 
that rotary furnace standards should not be based on emissions that are 
not from stand-alone rotary furnace operations. The commenter stated 
that the EPA should not derive standards for rotary furnaces from 
performance of a different source type or subcategory that includes a 
furnace combination (i.e., reverberatory/short rotary furnace). The 
commenter also contends that there are insufficient data available to 
establish limits for D/F and THC from rotary furnaces. The commenter 
contends that the EPA used one source that is not representative of or 
similar to true rotary furnace operation to establish the limits for 
``rotary furnaces.'' The commenter stated that the emissions limit 
established in the proposed rule is arbitrary because it is not based 
on operations of rotary furnaces using lead bearing materials from lead 
acid batteries as feedstock.
    The commenter notes that RSR's Middletown, NY facility, whose test 
data were used as the basis for the THC and D/F limits, only uses their 
rotary furnace to process one type of lead bearing material, 
reverberatory slag, and this furnace is not representative of the full 
capabilities of rotary furnace operation. The commenter notes that 
JCI's Florence Recycling Center plans to utilize stand-alone rotary 
furnaces to process lead paste, battery components, and ``other 
materials with recoverable quantities of lead.'' The commenter further 
notes that the emissions from RSR's short rotary furnace (SRF) and 
drying kiln are combined, and it is unclear from information in the 
docket whether testing of the SRF occurred at a location prior to the 
combination of these exhaust streams.
    The commenter also stated that JCI and RSR differ in raw materials 
used in the facilities' operations. RSR's Title V application for its 
Middletown facility indicates that RSR may process automotive, 
industrial, and specialty-type lead-acid batteries as well as lead 
bearing materials received from lead-acid battery manufacturing plants 
and scrap metal in its reverberatory furnace. JCI's furnace feed is 
from automotive and marine batteries and from lead bearing materials 
from other JCI facilities. The commenter contends that, since the EPA 
considered no data representative of a rotary furnace operation such as 
that which will be operated at the JCI Florence Recycling Center, a 
numeric limit for this category cannot be assigned.
    One commenter also stated that the stack test for RSR's SRF that 
was used

[[Page 570]]

to develop D/F and THC emission limits for ``rotary furnaces'' included 
only two successful test runs and therefore must be considered 
inadequate for setting emission limits since 40 CFR 63.7(e)(3) requires 
three test runs for compliance demonstration purposes.
    One commenter supports the individual stack emission limits for THC 
and D/F but provides comment on the EPA's consideration of statistical 
variability for the rotary furnace subcategory. The commenter stated 
that the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) tends to inflate the variability 
because the statistical procedure attempts to accommodate the highest 
emission measurement at the same facility and not necessarily the 
variability between facilities as the MACT floor is intended to 
achieve. Additionally, the UPL is very dependent on the number of valid 
samples. The commenter contends that, when a suitable number of samples 
have been collected, the 99 percent confidence limit (CL) represents a 
range for which there is 99 percent certainty that the interval 
contains the true mean. The commenter suggests that caution be used 
when determining a MACT floor from limited test data and that the 99 
percent CL is more appropriate for this particular industry.
    One commenter noted that the EPA did not consider a secondary lead 
smelting facility in Puerto Rico that operates a stand-alone rotary 
furnace. The commenter contends that even if it were appropriate to set 
MACT floor emission rates or standards for rotary furnaces, the EPA 
would have to obtain and consider data from the Puerto Rico facility. 
According to the commenter, failure to consider data from the facility 
``undermines the RTR Proposed Rule and any attempt by EPA to establish 
emission standards for the rotary furnace subcategory.'' The commenter 
contends that the EPA should issue a separate ICR for the Puerto Rico 
facility and publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that 
takes into account the emission information for this facility.
    Response: The EPA agrees that rotary furnaces fueled by natural gas 
could be different from rotary furnaces operating using different fuel 
types, and that rotary furnaces processing slag could be different 
types of rotary furnaces than those processing lead acid batteries. 
More basically, the EPA simply has insufficient data on which to 
promulgate organic HAP standards for rotary furnaces. The proposed 
standards for THC and D/F were based on less than one single complete 
test, consisting only of two test runs from the natural gas fueled 
rotary furnace processing slag. See 76 FR at 29049-29050. (A complete 
test consists of three test runs.) When calculating variability using a 
limited dataset (in this case, the two test runs) the effect of 
variability can be substantial. Id. The proposed THC and D/F standards 
likewise were based on two test runs and similarly reflected enormous 
statistical variability due to the limited data. Id. at 29049/1. The 
EPA does not believe that these data are sufficient to adopt a standard 
even for the rotary furnace which was tested, much less a rotary 
furnace which may be different. Accordingly, we are not adopting 
standards for organic HAP emissions from rotary furnaces at this time 
and instead we intend to issue CAA section 114 information requests to 
sources operating rotary furnaces to obtain more representative 
emission data and plan to propose standards for organic HAP in a future 
action. However, we note that the lead emission standards included in 
this action do apply to rotary furnaces processing slag or lead acid 
batteries.

E. The EPA's Risk Assessment Supporting the Proposed Rule

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA's methodology is 
unreliable and incorrect. The commenters stated that the EPA 
overestimated the baseline fugitive emissions for the Exide Frisco 
facility whose (faulty) estimates then became the basis for estimating 
all other facilities' fugitive emission rates. The commenter stated 
that the EPA scaled Exide's reported fugitive emissions of 0.296 tpy 
for the blast and reverberatory furnace fugitive emissions to 0.32 tpy 
based on the assumption that fugitives would not be on the same 
operating schedule as process emissions. The commenter contends that 
this scaling is inappropriate since furnace fugitives can only occur 
when the associated process furnaces are operating. The commenter 
further stated that the EPA also double-counted the fugitives of 0.32 
tpy by assigning the value to each of the blast and reverberatory 
furnaces, despite the fact that Exide reported the value as combined 
emissions for both the reverberatory and blast furnace.
    Response: The commenter is correct in both respects. The EPA has 
accordingly adjusted its calculation of the fugitive emissions from 
Exide's Frisco facility (thereby reducing the facility's fugitive dust 
emissions estimate) and adjusted the emissions estimates for each 
facility to reflect the revised estimate of the Frisco facility. The 
resulting risk results have also been adjusted. We note that the 
updated emissions estimates and risk results did not substantively 
alter our decisions under section 112(f). The modeling showed 9 of 15 
facilities above the lead NAAQS, down from 12 of 14 facilities at 
proposal. The maximum modeled lead concentration in the source category 
decreased from about 23 times the NAAQS to about 16 times the NAAQS. We 
still find that risks from this source category are not acceptable and 
that revisions under section 112(f)(2) are therefore required, and 
further find that it is necessary under section 112(d)(6) to revise the 
standards for fugitive emissions considering the developments in cost-
effective control technologies for their control.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA's multipathway risk 
estimates are incorrect because they relied on incorrect dioxin and 
furan emissions from Exide's Frisco, Texas facility. The commenters 
contend that a dioxin and furan test conducted in October 2010 at the 
Frisco facility revealed an emissions rate of 6.2E-08 tons/year on a 
toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) basis, 69 times lower than the 
estimate used by the EPA. One commenter noted that the exact effect 
that the difference in emissions would have on the calculated risks is 
unknown since the EPA has not placed the full methodology behind its 
multipathway risk calculations in the record. However, the commenter 
noted that assuming the relationship between emissions and risk is 
approximately linear, the EPA's calculated risk would be approximately 
69 times lower than that estimated at proposal and less than 1 in a 
million. The commenter further requested that the EPA disclose its 
multipathway risk calculation methodology and allow for public notice-
and-comment. Another commenter stated that the EPA's overestimation of 
dioxin and furan emissions may lead to unwarranted public concern about 
the Frisco facility. The commenter requested that the EPA include a 
clarifying explanation regarding the Frisco emissions data and the 
lower multipathway risk in the final rule as well as in the risk 
assessment document.
    Response: As noted in previous responses, the final risk assessment 
reflects updated emission information received during the public 
comment period for the proposed rule. We also note that the updated 
dioxin/furan test data were not made available to the EPA, despite 
repeated requests, until June 2011. With respect to the estimated 
emissions of D/F, the commenter is correct that EPA overestimated these 
emissions at proposal by a factor of 69 for the reasons stated. 
Considering this updated emissions information, the EPA

[[Page 571]]

estimates that multipathway risk associated with the Exide Frisco 
facility is less than 1 in a million (and so contributes very little to 
the estimates of risk posed by this source category, and is not a 
driver of the determination that risks from this source category are 
unacceptable). See Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting Source Category, available in the docket, at pages 32-33.
    This additional information does not warrant any reopening of the 
proposed rule or comment period, however. First, the EPA fully 
disclosed its multipathway risk methodology; the commenter's assertions 
to the contrary are simply mistaken. Thus, the risk assessment document 
along with its appendices was available in the docket for the proposed 
rulemaking and describes in detail the methodology used in the 
assessment. See the Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting Source Category, at page 10, available in the docket. Also see 
docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0037 for a thorough discussion of the 
EPA's human health multipathway risk assessment methodology.
    Second, the new information reinforces the tentative conclusion the 
EPA reached at proposal: risks associated with emissions of dioxin and 
furans from the secondary lead source category are not primary drivers 
in the unacceptable risks from this source category (i.e. dioxin and 
furan emissions are not the reason that risks from secondary lead 
smelter emissions are unacceptable). See 76 FR at 29055/2. The new 
analysis reinforces that risks posed by dioxin and furan emissions are 
acceptable, since emission levels are 69 times less than estimated at 
proposal (when risks from CDD and CDFs were already considered to be at 
an acceptable level). Thus, this already acceptable level of risk is 
less than estimated and less than one in a million. The EPA does not 
agree that further comment on this issue is warranted, since further 
comment would not have a practical effect on the rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The comment that EPA's standards for dioxin and furans do 
not result in significant risk reduction is misplaced given that the 
EPA is not adopting any risk-based (i.e., section 112(f)(2)) 
standards based on the need for reduction of emissions of dioxin and 
furan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA inappropriately summed 
risks from the inhalation and multipathway risk assessments at the 
Exide Frisco facility. The commenter noted that it is impossible for 
the person with the highest chronic inhalation cancer risk to also be 
the same person with the highest individual multipathway cancer risk 
since the two MIR values are location dependent and are at locations 
that are widely separated. The commenter further noted that the EPA has 
indicated in other contexts that when populations are exposed via more 
than one pathway, the combination of exposures across pathways must 
also represent a reasonable maximum exposure.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. While highly 
unlikely (and noted as being highly unlikely in the risk assessment 
document), it is theoretically possible for the person with the highest 
chronic inhalation cancer risk to also be the same person with the 
highest individual multipathway cancer risk. The EPA notes that the 
multipathway risk assessment does not provide a specific location for 
the MIR; thus, it is possible (although highly unlikely) that the 
person with the highest inhalation MIR is also consuming fish (at the 
fish ingestion rates described in the multipathway report) from the 
theoretically contaminated lake. That being said, however, we note that 
considering updated emissions information for this facility, updated 
multipathway results indicate multipathway risk associated with the 
Exide Frisco facility are well below one in a million. Considering 
these updated results, multipathway risk would not appreciable add to 
any inhalation risk associated with this facility.
    Comment: Commenter 94 stated that the EPA improperly calculated the 
inhalation cancer MIR for the Exide Frisco facility in a vacant field 
to the north of the facility within the facility's property line. The 
commenter noted that the lifetime cancer risk of the MEI cannot be at a 
location within the facility property line.
    Response: The commenter is correct and the EPA has corrected the 
receptor location resulting in a change in the results in the final 
risk assessment. The MIR for this facility is now located at a 
populated census block (based on the 2001 census).

F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text

    Comment: Three commenters requested that the EPA replace the term 
``modified source'' with ``reconstructed source.'' Neither the proposed 
rule nor the EPA's general Part 63 regulations define the term 
``modified source.'' The term is defined in the CAA, but that 
definition would require a source to install maximum achievable control 
technology and impose a ``new source'' requirement like CEMS on a 
modified source, rather than appropriately imposing the existing source 
provisions that do not require installation of a CEMS.
    Response: The term ``modified source'' appeared in the proposed 
rule at 40 CFR 63.548(l) under the proposed requirement to install a 
CEMS for measuring lead emissions on all new or modified sources. We 
agree with the commenter that the terminology of ``reconstructed'' 
source would be more appropriate for this requirement and have changed 
the regulatory language accordingly.
    Comment: Three commenters requested clarification of the term 
``affected source'' as used in the proposed rule. The proposed rule 
uses the terms ``new sources'', ``existing source'' and ``modified 
source'' without clarifying whether it is referring to secondary lead 
smelters generally, or to potential emissions sources within secondary 
lead smelters. There is a seeming contradiction between the use of the 
term ``affected source'' in the proposed rule and the definition in 40 
CFR Part 63, Subpart A general provisions. One commenter also 
understands that the terms ``new sources'' and ``existing sources'', as 
used in the proposed rule, are consistent with the definitions as used 
in CAA Sec.  112(a). The commenter ``understands EPA intends to address 
any addition of units to an `existing source' consistent with the 
provisions of the CAA'' and understands that the analysis as explained 
in Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories, 40 CFR 
Part 63 (6X) NESHAP, Questions and Answers, April 2011 would apply with 
respect to implementation of any amendments to subpart X requirements. 
The Q&A explains that the ``CAA uses the word `source' to mean the 
entire facility in terms of the classification of `new' vs. `existing' 
whereas for the Subpart 6X rule, what is referred to as the `affected 
source' is actually one of the processes at the facility''.
    Response: The EPA has clarified the application of these terms in 
the final rule. The definition in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A requires 
each relevant standard to define the ``affected source,'' as the 
collection of equipment, activities, or both within a single contiguous 
area and under common control that is included in a CAA section 112(c) 
source category or subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard or 
other relevant standard is established pursuant to CAA section 112 
unless a different definition is warranted based on a published 
justification as to why this definition would result in significant 
administrative, practical, or implementation problems and why the

[[Page 572]]

different definition would resolve those problems. We have adopted a 
definition of ``affected source'' in this rulemaking as any of the 
listed individual sources at a secondary lead smelter. This application 
of the term ``affected source'' is the same as was used in the 1997 
NESHAP for secondary lead. The term ``affected source'' is used in the 
final rule primarily in the context of new sources. This definition is 
appropriate for the secondary lead source category because the chief 
source of emissions from these facilities are the furnaces, and as 
these furnaces are replaced or reconstructed, the replacement equipment 
would be subject to the standard for a new source.
    A ``new source'' has also been defined as any affected source at a 
secondary lead facility that undergoes construction or reconstruction 
after May 19, 2011, the date of the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) and 
112(d)(6) rules. A building that is constructed for the purpose of 
controlling fugitive emissions from an existing source is not 
considered to be a new source because it is effectively a control 
device for fugitive emissions.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the last sentence in the current 
definition of ``Materials storage and handling area'' has been deleted 
in the proposed definition. This sentence reads: ``Materials storage 
and handling area does not include areas used exclusively for storage 
of blast furnace slag.'' The commenter disagreed with the EPA's 
assessment that this is a minor change. ``EPA should provide an 
explanation of what changed circumstances justify a new rule.'' Two 
other commenters requested that the definition be modified to exclude 
the transfer of raw materials of any type in enclosed conveyors. The 
commenter stated that ``as currently worded, the enclosure requirement 
proposed would apply to handling of fabric filter dust in enclosed 
conveyors, containers, or in wet slurried form, which is unnecessary.'' 
The commenter suggested revising the definition to include the 
following: ``Material storage and handling area shall not include any 
closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors.''
    Response: A definition of ``lead bearing material'' has been added 
to the final rule. Rather than include or exclude any one particular 
material in the definition of ``materials storage and handling area'' 
based on the originating process, this definition establishes lead 
content as the criterion for determining whether materials must be 
handled in such a manner as to prevent lead dust formation. The 
definition of ``materials storage and handling area'' remains 
essentially unchanged from the definition in the proposed rule.
    Fugitive dust formation has been identified as the major 
contributor to ambient lead concentrations near secondary lead 
smelters. Piles where lead bearing materials are stored were identified 
as one of the major sources of fugitive lead emissions. However, there 
was no definition for lead-bearing material in the proposed rule that 
could be used to make a determination of which materials needed to be 
handled in a manner that prevents dust formation. By adding a 
definition of ``lead bearing material'' to the rule, we have clarified 
and quantified the definition of ``materials storage and handling 
area.''
    The EPA is using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 
(TCLP), EPA Method 1311 to measure which materials are lead-bearing, 
and using the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/l (in the extract from the 
test) as the specific level for being lead-bearing. See 40 CFR 261.24. 
This assures that only materials with at least 100 ppm total lead will 
be considered to be `lead-bearing'. See EPA Method 1311 section 2.2 
which describes that the liquid to solid ratio of material tested 
should be 20:1 (i.e. 5 mg/l in the TCLP extract is equal to at least 
100 ppm in the material being tested). The specific definition of lead 
bearing material chosen ensures that materials that contain relatively 
substantial amounts of lead (0.01 percent) are included while 
minimizing additional testing burden for facilities who must determine 
what does or does not meet the definition. Testing burden is minimized 
because facilities already use the TCLP to determine whether or not the 
wastes they manage are hazardous, pursuant to subtitle C of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Imposing a different threshold 
for defining material as ``lead bearing'' could thus impose duplicative 
or conflicting requirements between subpart X and other regulatory 
regimes. Furthermore, the TCLP is a test protocol which includes a 
grinding step, which is a conservative measure of determining whether a 
material could generate fugitive emissions. See Method 1311 steps 7.1.3 
and 7.2.10.
    To address the concern that fabric filter dust in enclosed 
conveyors, containers or wet slurries must be additionally handled only 
inside an enclosure, we have added an exemption from the enclosure 
requirement for materials that are ``lead bearing'' but are not 
expected to generate fugitive lead dust. While these materials do 
contain lead in amounts that could otherwise meet the definition of 
lead bearing material, they are either in a stabilized form that will 
not create fugitive dust or in a container that prevents fugitive dust 
formation. These materials include: lead ingot products, stormwater and 
wastewater, intact batteries, lead bearing material that is stored in 
closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors, and clean battery 
casing material.
    Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition of 
``plant roadway'' specifically to exclude finished lead product storage 
areas and roadways or traffic areas located within enclosed buildings.
    Response: We accept the commenter's suggestion to exclude roadways 
or traffic areas located within enclosed buildings from the definition 
of ``plant roadway.'' However, we do not believe that it is appropriate 
to exclude finished lead product storage areas since these areas may be 
located in close proximity to areas that may require cleaning (e.g., 
slag storage areas).
    Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition of 
process vent. As currently drafted, it appears overly broad and could 
lead to confusion concerning the ventilation systems that must be 
tested.
    Response: We have made revisions to the regulatory text to clarify 
that the term ``process vent'' includes various process vents and vents 
from buildings containing lead bearing material. Vents from office or 
other non-process areas are not considered to be process vents.
    Comment: Two comments were received on the terminology used for a 
lead CEMS. According to the commenter, ``Paragraph 63.548(m) specifies 
that lead CEMS be `continuous emission rate monitors.' The standard is 
a concentration standard, not an emission rate standard, so the term 
``continuous emission rate monitor'' is not appropriate''. Since flow 
and concentration monitors are needed to calculate compliance with the 
flow weighted average, one commenter recommended a requirement for flow 
and concentration monitors rather than citing a type of monitoring 
system that is not applicable to the standard.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the term continuous 
emissions rate monitor is not appropriate. We have replaced the term 
``continuous emissions rate monitor'' with ``continuous emissions 
monitoring system.''
    Comment: Two commenters noted that the term ``accidental release'' 
is not defined in the rule. The commenters recommended that the EPA use 
the CERCLA reportable quantity threshold of 10 pounds to define an 
accidental

[[Page 573]]

release of lead-containing dust. Two commenters recommended that the 
requirement to initiate cleaning within one hour of a release be 
changed to require that the facility initiate cleaning activities 
within one hour after discovery of an accidental release.
    Response: We accept the commenters' suggestion to use the CERCLA 
reportable quantity threshold of 10 pounds to define an accidental 
release of lead-containing dust. We also accept the commenters' 
suggestion to require initiation of cleaning within one hour of 
discovery of an accidental release.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of 
``maintenance activity'' be changed from ``any of the following routine 
maintenance and repair activities that generate fugitive lead dust:'' 
to ``any of the following maintenance and repair activities when they 
generate fugitive lead dust:''
    Response: We do not agree with the commenter's proposed change to 
the definition of ``maintenance activity.'' If this definition was 
adopted, the facility would be allowed to proceed with a maintenance 
activity and then, if the activity began generating dust, controls 
would need to be adopted but otherwise-controllable lead emissions 
would be released to ambient air. However, we have modified the 
definition to read ``any of the following routine maintenance and 
repair activities that could generate fugitive lead dust.'' This 
definition ensures that proactive, rather than reactive, actions would 
be taken for activities with the potential to generate lead dust.
    Comment: One commenter stated that a definition of lead-bearing 
material should be added and should include such characteristics as the 
material should be semi-granular, have a lead content of greater than 
10 percent, and produce visible fugitive emissions when handled or 
transported.
    Response: As noted above, we have added a definition of lead-
bearing material to the regulatory text. However, we believe that a 10 
percent lead content is too high. We have defined lead-bearing material 
in the rule as material with lead content of 5 mg/l or greater as 
measured by the TCLP (Method 1311), which means that materials would 
need to contain at least 100 ppm of lead. This is equivalent to the 
toxicity characteristic level for a hazardous waste containing lead as 
defined at 40 CFR 261.24.
    Comment: One commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.544(d) of the proposed 
rule makes reference to the requirements in subsections (d)(1) through 
(d)(4). However, as the commenter points out, there are eight 
subsections applicable to 40 CFR 63.544(d) and subsection (d)(2) 
further refers to meeting requirements through (d)(8).
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made the 
suggested change in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.544(d).
    Comment: One commenter noted that proposed 40 CFR 63.543(i) 
requires that sources conduct testing for process vents, ``* * * under 
such conditions as the administrator specifies based on representative 
performance of the affected source for the period being tested.'' The 
commenter requested that the EPA replace this ``cumbersome'' language 
with ``* * * under normal operating conditions.''
    Response: We have modified the text to require sources to conduct 
testing ``under maximum representative operating conditions for the 
process.'' The term maximum is included to ensure that the testing 
occurs during a time period of full production at the facility that is 
representative of normal operation. This language allows sources to 
develop test conditions which approximate the variability they can 
reasonably encounter during normal operation. Parametric monitoring 
requirements, based on parameters measured during the performance test, 
would then reasonably reflect this operating variability and afford the 
source flexibility in its day-to-day operation. Cf. Cement Kiln 
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.855, 866-67 (DC Cir. 2001) (upholding 
use of such data to set MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(3)).
    Comment: One commenter noted that Table 3 of the proposed rule is 
improperly labeled, ``table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60--Toxic 
Equivalency Factors.'' As the commenter points out, the table is 
included in 40 CFR part 63, not 40 CFR part 60.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made the 
suggested change to Table 3 of the proposed rule.
    Comment: Two commenters pointed out that there is a typographical 
error in Equation 2 of the proposed rule at 40 CFR 63.543(c). The 
definition of the term CELI includes the word lead, though 
the equation is not applicable to lead.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has adjusted the 
definition of the term CELI in Equation 2 of 40 CFR 
63.543(c) accordingly.

G. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency

    Comment: Two commenters stated their support for biannual testing 
for well performing facilities. One commenter contends that the East 
Penn facility currently conducts biannual testing for lead and still 
maintains compliance with the lead NAAQS and applicable subpart X 
emission standards. The commenter further argued that the EPA has not 
demonstrated any environmental benefits associated with annual testing 
versus biannual testing for well controlled facilities. The commenter 
contends that the East Penn facility has made strategic decisions to 
invest capital resources to reduce lead emissions and that the removal 
of the biannual testing exemption would unnecessarily increase the 
annual operating costs of the facility.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that a biannual testing 
exemption for well performing facilities can be retained in this 
NESHAP. We have added an exemption for any stacks that report a lead 
concentration of 0.1 mg/dscm or lower allowing biannual testing. The 
concept of decreased testing frequency for well-performing sources was 
discussed in the proposal as a part of the fenceline monitoring 
approach (see 76 FR at 29057).
    Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the annual testing 
requirement for total hydrocarbons (THC). One commenter stated that 
since the risk assessment did not identify significant risks drivers 
among the organic HAP represented by THC, the THC testing should be 
conducted concurrently with the dioxin and furan tests every 5 years 
with continuous compliance demonstrated via afterburner temperature 
monitoring. Another commenter stated that requiring annual THC tests is 
redundant and unnecessary if a CEMS is installed and operated per 40 
CFR 63.543(k).
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that THC testing should be 
conducted on the same schedule as dioxins and furans. Testing for THC 
is substantially less expensive than testing for dioxins and furans and 
we do not believe annual THC testing presents an unnecessary burden. 
However, we have added an exemption allowing biannual testing of THC 
for any stack that reports concentrations that are less than half of 
the applicable emissions limit. Annual stack testing is obviously not 
required if a THC CEMS is used.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should allow 
facilities to use EPA Method 12 for lead compounds to calculate 
compliance with the process vent limitations in order to be consistent 
with testing requirements that exist in many facility permits.
    Response: We agree that facilities should be given the option of 
using EPA

[[Page 574]]

Method 12. The regulatory text has been edited accordingly.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the BLDS exemption for 
baghouses equipped with HEPA filters should be retained. One commenter 
stated that to install BLDS's on HEPA filtered stacks is excessive and 
unwarranted. The commenter also believes that annual stack testing for 
sources equipped with HEPA filtration is not necessary. Another 
commenter argued that the cost associated with using BLDS is not 
commensurate with their limited ability. The commenter stated that 
BLDS's are inherently reactive whereas baghouses equipped with HEPA 
filtration actually prevent emissions in the event of a bag failure. 
Further, the commenter argued that HEPA secondary collection pressure 
differential is an effective method to monitor baghouse performance. 
The commenter contends that the BLDS requirement will pose an 
unnecessary and redundant burden on facilities that proactively chose 
to install HEPA filtration systems and that the proposed revisions are 
a disincentive for facilities to install HEPA filters. Finally, the 
commenter stated that the proposed BLDS requirement and the elimination 
of the BLDS exemption for HEPA filters are arbitrary and not supported 
by test data.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that baghouses equipped with 
HEPA filters do not need bag leak detection systems as well. The 
measurement of pressure drop across a HEPA filter provides the indicia 
of superior performance for determining continuous compliance. However, 
we disagree that sources should be exempt from annual stack testing 
based solely on the use of a HEPA filter. The emission standard 
includes calculation of a facility-wide emission average and testing 
the process vents subject to that limit is needed to determine 
compliance. Monitoring pressure drop across HEPA filters is a means for 
determining continuous compliance, similar to a bag leak detection 
system in baghouses without HEPA filters. In both cases, periodic stack 
tests are necessary to ensure that lead emissions are below the 
applicable emission standard. However, we note that we have included a 
biannual testing exemption for stacks that report lead concentrations 
less than 0.1 mg/dscm.

H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

    Comment: One commenter expressed concerns related to the total 
hydrocarbon (THC) standard during start-up periods. According to the 
commenter, it will be impossible to meet the minimum temperature at 
which compliance with the THC standard has been demonstrated during 
startup of a furnace. The blast furnace crucible must be heated for up 
to 12 hours before raw materials can be charged. The reverberatory 
furnace cold startups occur over an extended period also. There is no 
introduction of feedstock during the warm-up process and, therefore, no 
emissions of process-related THC emissions. Emissions during this time 
period will consist entirely of combustion products associated with the 
fuels natural gas and foundry coke. The afterburner or post combustion 
system are equipped with rudimentary burners that provide supplementary 
heat but rely on the excess heat contained within the combined furnace 
exhaust gases during production operations to achieve an afterburner 
temperature that assures the efficient combustion of the process off-
gases. The afterburner supplementary burners are not sufficient to 
maintain the required temperature during furnace startup and shutdown 
sequences. The proposed revisions to subpart X should include 
definitions of startup and shutdown for collocated blast and 
reverberatory furnaces that clearly define when alternative THC 
standards would apply and how compliance with an alternative standard 
is monitored.
    Response: The EPA has revised this final rule to require sources to 
meet a work practice standard that requires the development of standard 
operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC for each 
start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated for all units subject to THC 
emission limits. We considered whether temperature (the metric used to 
determine continuous compliance for the THC standard in this rule) or 
performance testing and enforcement of numeric emission limits would be 
practicable during periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA determined 
that there are a number of significant technical challenges associated 
with emissions measurements of THC emissions during periods of startup 
and shutdown for this industry. These challenges make establishing and 
complying with numerical emissions limits impracticable.
    There are multiple factors informing this decision. Temperature is 
obviously an inappropriate measure to determine continuous compliances 
for these furnaces during periods of startup and shutdown when the 
furnaces are being heated during startup (or cooled during shutdown) 
from ambient to the steady state operating temperature. The furnaces 
are heated during periods of startup through slow feeding of natural 
gas and small amounts of coke with no lead acid batteries fed to the 
furnace. It is impossible for furnace exhaust to be maintained within 
the window prescribed by 40 CFR 63.548(h)(4) during periods of startup 
and shutdown. However, the inability to maintain this temperature in 
secondary lead smelter furnace exhaust does not indicate high emissions 
of THC during these periods. In fact, the emissions are likely minimal 
because there are no plastics being fed to the furnace and minimal fuel 
use (mostly natural gas). Temperature is thus not the appropriate 
measure of continuous compliance during these periods and we are 
unaware of another metric that can be used to determine continuous 
compliance with a numerical standard for these furnaces during startup 
and shutdown. In terms of staff scheduling, test crews would have to be 
on-site and ready to begin THC testing at the beginning of a period of 
startup or shutdown, have multiple test crews on site for startup or 
shutdown periods lasting longer than 12 hours, and be prepared to stop 
and restart measurements to coincide with process trips that can occur 
during startup and shutdown of secondary lead smelting furnaces. Since 
startups and shutdowns of these furnaces are not necessarily scheduled 
long in advance, scheduling such testing to coincide with the beginning 
of startup or shutdown periods would require having testing crews on-
site nearly full time. These staff resource issues would dramatically 
increase the cost of testing during startup and shutdown periods.
    For these technical and economic reasons, we have determined that 
conducting manual test methods during these secondary lead furnace 
startup or shutdown periods for THC to be impracticable within the 
meaning of CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). As a result, we have established a 
separate work practice standard for emissions of THC during periods of 
startup and shutdown. This work practice standard requires the 
development of standard operating procedures designed to minimize 
emissions of THC for each start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated 
for all units subject to THC limits.
    This startup and shutdown work practice applies only to the THC 
emission limits. We have no reason to provide startup or shutdown 
provisions for emissions of lead from any source because the fabric 
filters used to control particulate and lead emissions are not less 
effective during startup or shutdown periods (nor would we expect 
sources to have any difficulty meeting the lead standard since lead-
bearing feed is not charged during either startup

[[Page 575]]

or shutdown conditions). Additionally, the metrics for determining 
continuous compliance with these standards are appropriate for periods 
of startup and shutdown. Therefore, we have established the separate 
work practice standard only for THC for periods of startup and 
shutdown.
    During these periods, we do not believe dioxins and furans can form 
because there are no chlorinated plastics or flame-retardants being fed 
as these materials are only introduced as impurities with the lead feed 
material. Therefore, we have not included a standard for dioxins and 
furans during periods of startup and shutdown because these pollutants 
are not emitted.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that 
malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and, 
therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once 
promulgated, apply at all times.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

    We anticipate that the 15 secondary lead smelting facilities 
currently or recently operating in the continental United States and 
Puerto Rico as well as one facility currently under construction in 
South Carolina will be affected by this final rule.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are expected to 
result from these final amendments to the 1997 NESHAP compared to the 
2009 baseline emissions estimates calculated based on ICR data. The ICR 
data and RTR emissions memo are available in the docket to this action. 
A detailed documentation of the analysis can be found in the document 
in the docket titled: Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the 
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category.
    Emissions of lead and arsenic from secondary lead smelters have 
declined over the last 15 years as a result of federal rules, state 
rules and on the industry's own initiative. The final rule will cut 
lead and arsenic emissions by an estimated 68 percent from current 
actual emission levels based on the ICR data collected for this 
rulemaking. The final rule will result in estimated annual lead 
emissions reductions of 7.2 tpy from process and process fugitive 
sources and annual lead emissions reductions of 6.4 tpy from fugitive 
dust sources from 2009 baseline emissions (for a total annual reduction 
of 13.6 tons per year). The expected annual reduction in total metal 
HAP \8\ is 8.2 tpy from process and process fugitive sources and the 
expected annual reduction is 7.2 tpy from fugitive dust sources (total 
annual metal HAP reductions are estimated at 15.4 tons). We estimate 
that these controls will also reduce emissions of particulate matter 
(PM) (combined total of fine and coarse PM) by 135 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Total metal HAP consists of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that 
all facilities will be able to comply with the final emissions limits 
for THC and D/F without additional controls. However, we expect that 
emissions reductions will occur due to increased temperatures of 
afterburners and from improved work practices. Nevertheless, it is 
difficult to estimate accurate reductions from these actions and, 
therefore, we are not providing quantified estimates of reductions for 
THC and D/F.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    As a result of this final rule, certain secondary lead smelting 
facilities are expected to incur capital costs for the following types 
of control measures: replacement of existing baghouses with new, 
higher-performing baghouses, replacement of bags in existing baghouses 
with better-performing materials, construction of new enclosures for 
processes not currently enclosed, modification of partially enclosed 
structures to meet the requirements of total enclosure, and 
installation of fabric filters on enclosures.
    The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the 
number and types of upgrades we estimate that facility will require. 
Each facility was evaluated for its ability to meet the final limits 
for lead emissions, THC emissions, D/F emissions, and fugitive dust 
emissions. The memorandum titled: Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP 
for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category includes a complete 
description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is 
available in the docket.
    The majority of the capital costs estimated for compliance with 
this action are for purchasing new enclosures and the associated 
control devices that would be required for these enclosures. For each 
facility, we estimated the square footage of new enclosures required 
based on the size of enclosures currently in place compared to 
facilities that we considered to be totally enclosed with a similar 
production capacity. We further assumed that the facilities that 
required a substantial degree of new enclosure would re-configure their 
facilities, particularly the storage areas, to reduce the footprint of 
areas subject to total enclosure requirements.
    Based on our analysis of the facility configurations, seven 
facilities were considered already to be totally enclosed. Two 
facilities are currently installing enclosure structures and equipment 
that we anticipate will meet the requirements. Consequently, the 
capital costs do not include estimates for these nine facilities. We 
estimate that the remaining six facilities will require new building 
installations, thereby incurring capital costs. For the one facility 
currently under construction, we estimated one additional baghouse 
would be required.
    Typical enclosure costs were estimated using information and 
algorithms from the Permanent Total Enclosures chapter in the EPA Air 
Pollution Control Cost Manual. New baghouse costs were estimated using 
a model based primarily on the cost information for recent baghouse 
installations submitted by facilities in the ICR survey. The total 
capital cost estimate for the enclosures, the ductwork system, and 
control devices at the seven facilities is approximately $38 million, 
at an annualized cost of $6.4 million in 2009 dollars (an average of 
about $1 million per facility).
    We also estimated annual costs for the required work practices in 
this action. Based on the ICR survey information, we estimated that 
additional costs would be required to implement the work practices at 
12 of the 16 facilities. The total annual costs to implement the 
fugitive emissions work practices are approximately $3 million per 
year.
    For compliance with the stack lead concentration limit, we compared 
each stack emission point's lead concentration (reported to the EPA 
under the ICR) to the requirement of 1.0 mg/dscm of lead for any one 
stack. If the reported concentration exceeded 0.5 mg/dscm (one half the 
standard), we assumed that the facility would either

[[Page 576]]

upgrade the baghouse with new bags and additional maintenance or 
completely replace the baghouse, depending on the age of the baghouse 
(as explained further below). This cost estimate presents an upper-end 
estimate of the cost impacts of the final rule that assumes facilities 
will strive to operate well below the standard to ensure process 
variability does not cause emission rates approaching the maximum level 
allowed by the standard. If the baghouse was less than 10 years old and 
the lead concentration in the outlet was not appreciably over one half 
the standard (i.e., 0.5 mg/dscm), we assumed that the baghouse would 
require maintenance and bag replacement. If the baghouse was more than 
10 years old and the lead concentration was appreciably over the 
standard, we assumed the baghouse would be replaced. We then compared 
each facility's emissions with the flow-weighted, facility-wide 
concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm using the assumption that baghouses 
needing replacement based on the 1.0 mg/dscm individual stack limit 
would be replaced with units that performed at least as well as the 
average baghouse identified in our data set. These analyses indicate 
that nine baghouses would need to be replaced, and two baghouses would 
require additional maintenance. To estimate costs, we used a model 
based primarily on the cost information submitted in the ICR for recent 
baghouse installations in this industry. We assumed an increase in 
maintenance cost based on more frequent bag changes (from once every 5 
years to once every 2 years). The total capital cost for nine new 
baghouses at five facilities is estimated to be approximately $11.5 
million, and total annual costs were estimated to be approximately $2.7 
million.
    New limits are being promulgated for THC and D/F emissions from 
reverberatory and electric furnaces. We anticipate all operating 
affected units will be able to meet the limits without installing 
additional controls; however, we have estimated additional costs of 
$260,000 per year for facilities to increase the temperature of their 
existing afterburners to ensure continuous compliance with the 
standards. (We also considered this additional energy use as part of 
our analysis of whether the standards are warranted under CAA section 
112(d)(6). See Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary 
Lead Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0344, at page 7.)
    The capital cost estimated for additional differential pressure 
monitors for total enclosures is $106,000. The cost for all additional 
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, including the baghouse 
monitoring, is estimated at $791,000.
    The total annualized costs for the final rule are estimated at 
$13.4 million (2009 dollars). Table 5 of this preamble provides a 
summary of the estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with 
the final amendments to the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP presented in 
today's action. More detail on the estimated costs of today's final 
rule can be found in Cost Impacts of the revised NESHAP for the 
Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, available in the docket ID 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

              Table 5--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Promulgated Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Estimated    Estimated     Total HAP emissions    Cost effectiveness in $
           Final amendment              capital    annual cost    reductions (tons per      per ton total HAP
                                       cost ($MM)     ($MM)              year)           reduction ($ per pound)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised stack lead emissions limit..         11.5          2.7  8.2 of metal HAP \a\     $0.33 MM per ton, ($170
                                                                 (7.2 of which is lead).  per pound).
Total enclosure of fugitive                    38          6.4  5.2 of metal HAP \a\     $1.0 MM per ton, ($500
 emissions sources.                                              (4.6 of which is lead).  per pound).
Fugitive control work practices.....            0          3.0  2.0 of metal HAP \a\     $1.5 MM per ton, ($750
                                                                 (1.8 of which is lead).  per pound).
THC and D/F concentration limits....            0          0.3  29.6 \b\...............  $0.01 MM per ton.
Additional testing and monitoring...          0.3         0.79  N/A....................  N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Metal HAP consisting of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and
  selenium.
\b\ Based on total organic HAP reductions as a co-benefit of compliance with standards for dioxins and furans.

    The EPA notes that the cost effectiveness of the controls for stack 
emissions of metal HAP are within the range of values the agency has 
determined to be reasonable in other section 112 rules. Indeed, EPA 
determined that a value of $175 per pound of metal HAP removed was 
reasonable when determining standards for the iron and steel foundry 
source category, an area source standard reflecting the less rigorous 
Generally Available Control Technology under section 112(d)(5). See 73 
FR at 249. Thus, EPA regards the cost effectiveness of the standards 
for metal HAP here as reasonable, for purposes of the standards adopted 
pursuant to sections 112(f)(2) (ample margin of safety determination) 
and 112(d)(6). The measures required to control fugitive emissions are 
also cost effective, based largely on the fact that much of the 
industry has implemented some or all of the measures required in this 
final rule. The cost effectiveness for THC and D/F is presented as a 
point of information. Since those standards are MACT floor standards 
adopted pursuant to sections 112(d)(3), considerations of cost and 
cost-effectiveness played no part in EPA's consideration.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed an economic impact analysis for secondary lead 
consumers and producers nationally. Most secondary lead producers will 
incur annual compliance costs of much less than 1 percent of their 
sales, but one firm will incur costs of greater than 1 percent. Both 
demand and supply in this sector are generally inelastic to price 
changes as shown in the Economic Impact Analysis at page 4. Thus, if 
producers could pass through the entire cost of the rule to consumers, 
we would expect prices to increase by no more than one percent, with no 
change in output. Conversely, if producers could not pass through any 
of the cost by increasing the price, we would expect output to decline 
by less than one percent.
    Hence, the overall economic impact of this proposed rule should be 
low on most of the affected industry and its consumers. For more 
information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for this 
rulemaking that is in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

[[Page 577]]

E. What are the benefits?

    The estimated reductions in lead emissions that will be achieved by 
this final rule will provide significant benefits to public health. For 
example, the EPA's 2008 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that was 
completed for the lead NAAQS (which is available in the docket for this 
action and also on the EPA's Web site) \9\ described monetized benefits 
calculated for that action associated with reduced exposure to lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalpbriach5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in that RIA, there were also several other lead-related 
health effects for which the EPA was unable to quantify a monetized 
benefit--particularly among adults. These potential impacts included 
hypertension, non-fatal strokes, reproductive effects and premature 
mortality, among others.
    When viewed in this context, the reductions in concentrations of 
ambient lead that will be achieved with this RTR for secondary lead 
smelters are expected to provide important benefits to both children 
and adults. The EPA did not quantify these benefits because this rule 
did not trigger the requirement for conducting an RIA under Executive 
Order 12866, in addition to resource and data limitations for this 
rule. However, as noted at proposal, this rule should result in areas 
attaining the lead NAAQS where the secondary lead smelting source 
dominates the areas' ambient lead concentrations. See 76 FR at 29063-
64. Although these standards are not adopted to implement the lead 
NAAQS, and rest on legal and policy justifications that are unrelated 
to the requirements for adopting, revising, and implementing a NAAQS 
(e.g., CAA sections 112(d)(2), (3), 6 and CAA section 112(f)(2) as 
opposed to CAA sections 107-110), nonetheless these rules will aid in 
the attainment of the lead NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ It is possible that SIPs may require some of the same types 
of controls on these sources (or may rely on the controls in these 
rules as part of a control strategy). EPA cannot, of course, pre-
judge the SIP process. What is clear is that this rule should 
contribute significantly to attainment of the lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the benefits likely to be achieved for lead 
reductions, we also estimate that this final RTR rule will achieve 
about 39 to 63 tons of reductions in PM2.5 emissions as a 
co-benefit of the HAP reductions annually. See Development of the RTR 
Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category at 
section 8.3, which is available in the docket for information on how 
the PM2.5 emission reductions were calculated based on total 
PM reductions. Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is associated with 
significant human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and 
respiratory morbidity. Researchers have associated PM2.5 
exposure with adverse health effects in numerous toxicological, 
clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2009).\11\ When 
adequate data and resources are available and an RIA is required, the 
EPA generally quantifies several health effects associated with 
exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2010) \12\. These health 
effects include premature mortality for adults and infants, 
cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions, 
and respiratory morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic 
bronchitis, hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, 
restricted activity days, and respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA 
has not quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects on birth 
weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function and other cardiovascular 
and respiratory effects, the scientific literature suggests that 
exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with these impacts 
(U.S. EPA, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP 
Division. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
    \12\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Federal Transport Rule. 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 
Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/proposaltrria_final.pdf>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the final rule will provide human health benefits through 
reductions in arsenic and cadmium emissions, as well as reductions in 
emissions of organic HAP (including dioxins and furans).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' This action is a 
significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal and policy 
issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes 
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 
docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has 
been assigned EPA ICR number 1686.09. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The 
information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to 
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are promulgating new paperwork requirements to the Secondary 
Lead Smelting source category in the form of stack testing for THC and 
D/F as described in 40 CFR 63.543(h)-(k). In conjunction with setting 
THC limits for reverberatory and electric furnaces, additional 
monitoring and recordkeeping is required for furnace outlet temperature 
on these units. We believe temperature monitors currently exist in 
these locations and that the facilities will not incur a capital cost 
due to this requirement (and received no comments to indicate 
otherwise). Additionally, increased monitoring is required for 
demonstrating negative pressure in all total enclosures. To provide the 
public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden 
associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position 
adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to 
this ICR to show what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense 
might entail. The EPA's estimate for the required notification, reports 
and records for any individual incident, including the root cause 
analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time and effort required of 
a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and 
document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 
exceedance of an emissions

[[Page 578]]

limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record 
and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this 
illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only 
incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take 
advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions for which an affirmative defense to 
penalties might be asserted. Current historical records would be an 
inappropriate basis, as source owners or operators previously operated 
their facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the 
requirement to comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of 
the number of excess emissions events reported by source operators, 
only a small number would be expected to result from a malfunction 
(based on the definition above), and only a subset of excess emissions 
caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert 
the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of instances in 
which source operators might be expected to assert the affirmative 
defense will be extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more 
than 2 or 3 such occurrences for all sources subject to subpart X over 
the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information 
on such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 
information becomes available. We estimate 16 regulated entities are 
currently subject to subpart X and will be subject to all standards. 
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) for these amendments to subpart X (Secondary Lead 
Smelting) is estimated to be $790,000 per year. This includes 1,600 
labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $347,000 per year, and 
total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of 
$440,000 per year. This estimate includes performance tests, 
notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping associated with the new 
requirements for front-end process vents and back-end process 
operations. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over 
the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) is 
estimated to be 1,150 hours per year at a total labor cost of $52,000 
per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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. When these 
ICRs are approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment 
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 
numbers for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in the final rules.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    For this source category, which has the NAICS code 331419 (i.e., 
Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metal (except copper and 
aluminum)), the SBA small business size standard is 750 employees 
according to the SBA small business standards definitions. We have 
estimated the cost impacts and have determined that the impacts do not 
constitute a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities (see: Small Business Analysis for the Secondary Lead 
Smelting Source Category, which is available in the docket for this 
action).
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Two of the 
eight parent companies affected are considered a small entity per the 
definition provided in this section. However, we estimate that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on those companies 
(see: Small Business Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 
Category). All other affected parent companies are not small businesses 
according to the SBA small business size standard for the affected 
NAICS code (NAICS 331419).
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To 
reduce the impacts, we are promulgating stack limits for lead that 
allow sources to meet a standard based on aggregated emissions that are 
based on a weighted average approach (with each stack required to 
achieve a specified minimum level of control) and have been established 
at the least stringent levels that we estimate will still result in 
acceptable risks to public health with an ample margin of safety. 
Moreover, the compliance testing requirements were established in a way 
that minimizes the costs for testing and reporting while still 
providing the agency the necessary information needed to ensure 
continuous compliance with the standards. For more information, please 
refer to Small Business Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 
Category, which is available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain a federal mandate under the provisions 
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The action would not result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more for state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The action imposes no enforceable duties 
on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, 
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 
of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 
obligations upon them.

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

[[Page 579]]

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final rules 
primarily affect private industry, and do not impose significant 
economic costs on state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effect 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866. However, the agency does believe there is a 
disproportionate risk to children due to current emissions of lead from 
this source category. Children living near secondary lead smelters are 
the subpopulation most susceptible to effects of air-borne lead, as 
explained in detail in Section V.A above. The primary NAAQS for lead 
targets protection to this population, and is a reasonable measure for 
evaluating acceptability of risk here, again as explained in Section 
V.A. Modeled ambient air lead concentrations, based on actual emission 
levels, from about 9 of the 15 facilities in this source category are 
in excess of the NAAQS for lead. Also, the results of the demographic 
analysis indicate that of the 84,000 people exposed to a cancer risk 
greater than 1-in-1 million, the age 0 to 17 demographic percentage (of 
30 percent) is 3 percentage points higher than the corresponding 
national percentage for this demographic group (of 27 percent). This 
suggests that children may be at a slightly disproportionate risk of 
exposure to cancer risks from this source category. However, the 
control measures promulgated in this notice will result in lead 
concentration levels at or below the lead NAAQS at all facilities, 
thereby mitigating the risk of future adverse health effects to 
children. See Section V.A of this preamble and the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is 
available in the docket for this action, for discussions of post-
control risks.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse energy effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This action will not create any new 
requirements for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use 
sectors. Further, we have concluded that these final rules are not 
likely to have any adverse energy effects (and indeed, rejected certain 
types of control options, such as standards based on use of wet 
electrostatic precipitators, in part because of adverse energy 
implications).

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This action involves technical standards. The EPA requires use of 
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' for its manual 
methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the 
exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable 
alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 
York, NY 10016-5990.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule.

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) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
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 minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with each source category, we evaluated the 
distributions of HAP related cancer and non-cancer risks across 
different social, demographic, and economic groups within the 
populations living near the facilities where these source categories 
are located. The development of demographic analyses to inform the 
consideration of environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings is 
evolving.
    In the case of Secondary Lead Smelting, we focused on populations 
within 50 km of the 15 facilities in this source category with 
emissions sources subject to the MACT standard. More specifically, for 
these populations we evaluated exposures to HAP that could result in 
cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, or population exposures to 
ambient air lead concentrations above the level of the NAAQS for lead. 
We compared the percentages of particular demographic groups within the 
focused populations to the total percentages of those demographic 
groups nationwide. The results of this analysis are documented in the 
technical report: Risk and Technology Review--Final Analysis of Socio-
Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting 
Facilities which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. The 
actions in today's final rule will significantly decrease the risks due 
to HAP emissions from this source

[[Page 580]]

category for all demographic groups and mitigate any disproportionate 
risks due to those emissions.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing 
this final rule and other required information to the United States 
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rules will be 
effective on January 5, 2012.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 16, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (2) Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards (OAQPS), Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997, 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e)(4), 63.7525(j)(2), and 
63.11224(f)(2).
* * * * *

0
3. Revise subpart X to read as follows:
Subpart X--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
From Secondary Lead Smelting
Sec.
63.541 Applicability.
63.542 Definitions.
63.543 What are my standards for process vents?
63.544 What are my total enclosure standards?
63.545 What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?
63.546 Compliance dates.
63.547 Test methods.
63.548 Monitoring requirements.
63.549 Notification requirements.
63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
63.551 Implementation and enforcement.
63.552 Affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedance of 
emissions limit during malfunction.
Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to 
Subpart X
Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63--Emissions Limits for Secondary Lead 
Smelting Furnaces
Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors

Subpart X--National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants 
From Secondary Lead Smelting

Sec.  63.541  Applicability.

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate any of 
the following affected sources at a secondary lead smelter: Blast, 
reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; refining kettles; 
agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process fugitive emissions sources; 
buildings containing lead bearing materials; and fugitive dust sources. 
The provisions of this subpart do not apply to primary lead processors, 
lead refiners, or lead remelters.
    (b) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
of this part that apply to owners and operators of secondary lead 
smelters subject to this subpart.
    (c) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart, you are 
also subject to title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 
or 71, as applicable.
    (d) Emissions standards in this subpart apply at all times.

Sec.  63.542  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
    Affected source means any of the following sources at a secondary 
lead smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; 
refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process fugitive 
emissions sources; buildings containing lead bearing materials; and 
fugitive dust sources.
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
    Agglomerating furnace means a furnace used to melt into a solid 
mass flue dust that is collected from a baghouse.
    Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of 
monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust of a 
baghouse in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system 
includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 
triboelectric, light scattering, transmittance or other effect to 
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Battery breaking area means the plant location at which lead-acid 
batteries are broken, crushed, or disassembled and separated into 
components.
    Blast furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a vertical 
cylinder atop a crucible, into which lead-bearing charge materials are 
introduced at the top of the furnace and combustion air is introduced 
through tuyeres at the bottom of the cylinder, and that uses coke as a 
fuel source and that is operated at such a temperature in the 
combustion zone (greater than 980 Celsius) that lead compounds are 
chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.
    Blast furnace charging location means the physical opening through 
which raw materials are introduced into a blast furnace.
    Collocated blast furnace and reverberatory furnace means operation 
at the same location of a blast furnace and a reverberatory furnace 
where the vent streams of the furnaces are mixed before cooling, with 
the volumetric flow rate discharged from the blast furnace being equal 
to or less than that discharged from the reverberatory furnace.
    Dryer means a chamber that is heated and that is used to remove 
moisture from lead-bearing materials before they are charged to a 
smelting furnace.
    Dryer transition equipment means the junction between a dryer and 
the charge hopper or conveyor, or the junction between the dryer and 
the smelting furnace feed chute or hopper located at the ends of the 
dryer.
    Electric furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a vessel 
into which reverberatory furnace slag is introduced and that uses 
electrical energy to heat the reverberatory furnace slag to such a 
temperature (greater than 980 Celsius) that lead compounds are reduced 
to elemental lead metal.

[[Page 581]]

    Fugitive dust source means a stationary source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is not associated 
with a specific process or process fugitive vent or stack. Fugitive 
dust sources include, but are not limited to, roadways, storage piles, 
lead bearing material handling transfer points, lead bearing material 
transport areas, lead bearing material storage areas, other lead 
bearing material process areas, and buildings.
    Furnace and refining/casting area means any area of a secondary 
lead smelter in which:
    (1) Smelting furnaces are located;
    (2) Refining operations occur; or
    (3) Casting operations occur.
    Lead alloy means an alloy in which the predominant component is 
lead.
    Lead bearing material means material with a lead content equal to 
or greater than 5 mg/l as measured by EPA Method 1311 (Under Method 
1311, only materials with at least 100 ppm lead will be considered to 
be lead bearing).
    Leeward wall means the furthest exterior wall of a total enclosure 
that is opposite the windward wall.
    Maintenance activity means any of the following routine maintenance 
and repair activities that could generate fugitive lead dust:
    (1) Replacement or repair of refractory, or any internal or 
external part of equipment used to process, handle or control lead-
containing materials.
    (2) Replacement of any duct section used to convey lead-containing 
exhaust.
    (3) Metal cutting or welding that penetrates the metal structure of 
any equipment, and its associated components, used to process lead-
containing material such that lead dust within the internal structure 
or its components can become fugitive lead dust.
    (4) Resurfacing, repair or removal of ground, pavement, concrete, 
or asphalt.
    Materials storage and handling area means any area of a secondary 
lead smelter in which lead-bearing materials (including, but not 
limited to, broken battery components, reverberatory furnace slag, flue 
dust, and dross) are stored or handled between process steps including, 
but not limited to, areas in which materials are stored in open piles, 
bins, or tubs, and areas in which material is prepared for charging to 
a smelting furnace.
    Natural draft opening means any permanent opening in an enclosure 
that remains open during operation of the facility and is not connected 
to a duct in which a fan is installed.
    New source means any affected source at a secondary lead smelting 
facility the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after 
May 19, 2011. A building that is constructed for the purpose of 
controlling fugitive emissions from an existing source is not 
considered to be a new source.
    Partial enclosure means a structure comprised of walls or 
partitions on at least three sides or three-quarters of the perimeter 
surrounding stored materials or process equipment to prevent the 
entrainment of particulate matter into the air.
    Pavement cleaning means the use of vacuum equipment, water sprays, 
or a combination thereof to remove dust or other accumulated material 
from the paved areas of a secondary lead smelter.
    Plant roadway means any area of a secondary lead smelter outside of 
a total enclosure that is subject to vehicle traffic, including traffic 
by forklifts, front-end loaders, or vehicles carrying whole batteries 
or cast lead ingots. Excluded from this definition are employee and 
visitor parking areas, provided they are not subject to traffic by 
vehicles carrying lead-bearing materials.
    Pressurized dryer breaching seal means a seal system connecting the 
dryer transition pieces which is maintained at a higher pressure than 
the inside of the dryer.
    Process fugitive emissions source means a source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is associated with 
lead smelting or refining, but is not the primary exhaust stream from a 
smelting furnace, and is not a fugitive dust source. Process fugitive 
emissions sources include, but are not limited to, smelting furnace 
charging points, smelting furnace lead and slag taps, refining kettles, 
agglomerating furnaces, and drying kiln transition pieces.
    Process vent means furnace vents, dryer vents, agglomeration 
furnace vents, vents from battery breakers, vents from buildings 
containing lead bearing material, and any ventilation system 
controlling lead emissions.
    Refining kettle means an open-top vessel that is constructed of 
cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below and contains 
molten lead for the purpose of refining and alloying the lead. Included 
are pot furnaces, receiving kettles, and holding kettles.
    Reverberatory furnace means a refractory-lined furnace that uses 
one or more flames to heat the walls and roof of the furnace and lead-
bearing scrap to such a temperature (greater than 980 Celsius) that 
lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.
    Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary reverberatory furnace) means 
a furnace consisting of a refractory-lined chamber that rotates about a 
horizontal axis and that uses one or more flames to heat the walls of 
the furnace and lead-bearing scrap to such a temperature (greater than 
980 Celsius) that lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental 
lead metal.
    Secondary lead smelter means any facility at which lead-bearing 
scrap material, primarily, but not limited to, lead-acid batteries, is 
recycled into elemental lead or lead alloys by smelting.
    Shutdown means the period when no lead bearing materials are being 
fed to the furnace and smelting operations have ceased during which the 
furnace is cooled from steady-state operating temperature to ambient 
temperature.
    Smelting means the chemical reduction of lead compounds to 
elemental lead or lead alloys through processing in high-temperature 
(greater than 980 Celsius) furnaces including, but not limited to, 
blast furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric 
furnaces.
    Startup means the period when no led bearing materials have been 
fed to the furnace and smelting operations have not yet commenced 
during which the furnace is heated from ambient temperature to steady-
state operating temperature.
    Total enclosure means a containment building that is completely 
enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent exposure to the 
elements and to assure containment of lead bearing material with 
limited openings to allow access and egress for people and vehicles. 
The total enclosure must provide an effective barrier against fugitive 
dust emissions such that the direction of air flow through any openings 
is inward and the enclosure is maintained under constant negative 
pressure.
    Vehicle wash means a device for removing dust and other accumulated 
material from the wheels, body, and underside of a vehicle to prevent 
the inadvertent transfer of lead contaminated material to another area 
of a secondary lead smelter or to public roadways.
    Wet suppression means the use of water, water combined with a 
chemical surfactant, or a chemical binding agent to prevent the 
entrainment of dust into the air from fugitive dust sources.
    Windward wall means the exterior wall of a total enclosure that is 
most impacted by the wind in its most prevailing direction determined 
by a wind rose using available data from the

[[Page 582]]

closest representative meteorological station.

Sec.  63.543  What are my standards for process vents?

    (a) For existing sources, you must maintain the concentration of 
lead compounds in any process vent gas at or below 1.0 milligrams of 
lead per dry standard cubic meter (0.00043 grains of lead per dry 
standard cubic foot). You must maintain the flow-weighted average 
concentration of lead compounds in vent gases from a secondary lead 
smelting facility at or below 0.20 milligrams of lead per dry standard 
cubic meter (0.000087 grains of lead per dry standard cubic foot).
    (1) You must demonstrate compliance with the flow weighted average 
emissions limit on a 12-month rolling average basis, calculated monthly 
using the most recent test data available.
    (2) Until 12 monthly weighted average emissions rates have been 
accumulated, calculate only the monthly average weighted emissions 
rate.
    (3) You must use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the flow-
weighted average concentration of lead compounds from process vents:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA12.000

Where:

CFWA = Flow-weighted average concentration of all process 
vents.
n = Number of process vents.
Fi = Flow rate from process vent i in dry standard cubic 
feet per minute, as measured during the most recent compliance test.
Ci = Concentration of lead in process vent i, as measured 
during the most recent compliance test.

    (4) Each month, you must use the concentration of lead and flow 
rate obtained during the most recent compliance test performed prior to 
or during that month to perform the calculation using Equation 1 of 
this section.
    (5) If a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is used to 
measure the concentration of lead in a vent, the monthly average lead 
concentration and monthly average flow rate must be used rather than 
the most recent compliance test data.
    (b) For new sources that begin construction or reconstruction after 
May 19, 2011 you must maintain the concentration of lead compounds in 
any process vent gas at or below 0.20 milligrams of lead per dry 
standard cubic meter (0.000087 grains of lead per dry standard cubic 
foot).
    (c) You must meet the applicable emissions limits for total 
hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans from furnace sources specified in 
Table 2 of this subpart. There are no standards for dioxins and furans 
during periods of startup and shutdown.
    (d) If you combine furnace emissions from multiple types of 
furnaces and these furnaces do not meet the definition of collocated 
blast and reverberatory furnaces, you must calculate your emissions 
limit for the combined furnace stream using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA12.001

Where:
CEL = Flow-weighted average emissions limit 
(concentration) of combined furnace vents.
n = Number of furnace vents.
Fi = Flow rate from furnace vent i in dry standard cubic 
feet per minute.
CEli = Emissions limit (concentration) of pollutant in 
furnace vent i as specified in Table 2 of this subpart.

    (e) If you combine furnace emissions with the furnace charging 
process fugitive emissions and discharge them to the atmosphere through 
a common emissions point, you must demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable total hydrocarbons concentration limit specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section at a location downstream from the point 
at which the two emissions streams are combined.
    (f) If you do not combine the furnace charging process fugitive 
emissions with the furnace process emissions, and discharge such 
emissions to the atmosphere through separate emissions points, you must 
maintain the total hydrocarbons concentration in the exhaust gas at or 
below 20 parts per million by volume, expressed as propane and 
corrected to 4 percent carbon dioxide.
    (g) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limits specified in 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you must conduct performance 
tests according to the schedule in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (1) Conduct an annual performance test for lead compounds from each 
process vent (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous 
compliance test), unless you install and operate a CEMS meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  63.8.
    (2) If an annual compliance test demonstrates that a process vent 
emitted lead compounds at 0.10 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic 
meter or less during the time of the annual compliance test, you may 
submit a written request to the Administrator applying for an extension 
of up to 24 calendar months from the previous compliance test to 
conduct the next compliance test for lead compounds.
    (h) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the total hydrocarbons emissions limits in 
paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section, you must conduct an annual 
performance test for total hydrocarbons emissions from each process 
vent that has established limits for total hydrocarbons (no later than 
12 calendar months following the previous compliance test), unless you 
install and operate a CEMS meeting the requirements of Sec.  63.8. If 
an annual compliance test demonstrates that a process vent emitted 
total hydrocarbons at less than 50 percent of the allowable limit 
during the time of the annual compliance test, you may submit a written 
request to the Administrator applying for an extension of up to 24 
calendar months from the previous compliance test to conduct the next 
compliance test for total hydrocarbons.
    (i) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the dioxins and furans emissions limits 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must conduct a 
performance test for dioxins and furans emissions from each process 
vent that has established limits for dioxins and furans at least once 
every 6 years following the previous compliance test.
    (j) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraphs 
(g) through (i) of this section under maximum representative operating 
conditions for the process. During the performance test, you may 
operate the control device at maximum or minimum representative 
operating conditions for monitored control device parameters, whichever 
results in lower emission reduction. Upon request, you must make 
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (k) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for

[[Page 583]]

minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and 
maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information 
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, 
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
    (l) If you own or operate a unit subject to emission limits in 
Table 2 of this subpart, you must minimize the unit's startup and 
shutdown periods following the manufacturer's recommended procedures, 
if available. You must develop and follow standard operating procedures 
designed to minimize emissions of total hydrocarbon for each startup or 
shutdown scenario anticipated. You must submit a signed statement in 
the Notification of Compliance Status report that indicates that you 
conducted startups and shutdowns according to the manufacturer's 
recommended procedures, if available, and the standard operating 
procedures designed to minimize emissions of total hydrocarbons.
    (m) In addition to complying with the applicable emissions limits 
for dioxins and furans listed in Table 2 to this subpart, you must 
operate a process to separate plastic battery casing materials from all 
automotive batteries prior to introducing feed into a furnace.

Sec.  63.544  What are my total enclosure standards?

    (a) You must operate the process fugitive emissions sources and 
fugitive dust sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this 
section in a total enclosure that is maintained at negative pressure at 
all times and vented to a control device designed to capture lead 
particulate. The total enclosure must meet the requirements specified 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (1) Smelting furnaces.
    (2) Smelting furnace charging areas.
    (3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping.
    (4) Battery breakers.
    (5) Refining kettles, casting areas.
    (6) Dryers.
    (7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps.
    (8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials except 
those listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used fabric 
filters are processed.
    (b) Total enclosures are not required in the following areas: lead 
ingot product handling areas, stormwater and wastewater treatment 
areas, intact battery storage areas, areas where lead bearing material 
is stored in closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors, and 
areas where clean battery casing material is handled.
    (c) You must construct and operate total enclosures for the sources 
listed in paragraph (a) of this section as specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2) of this section. The total enclosure must be free of 
significant cracks, gaps, corrosion or other deterioration that could 
cause lead bearing material to be released from the primary barrier. 
Measures must be in place to prevent the tracking of lead bearing 
material out of the unit by personnel or by equipment used in handling 
the material. An area must be designated to decontaminate equipment and 
any rinsate must be collected and properly managed.
    (1) You must ventilate the total enclosure continuously to ensure 
negative pressure values of at least 0.013 mm of mercury (0.007 inches 
of water).
    (2) You must maintain an inward flow of air through all natural 
draft openings.
    (d) You must inspect enclosures and facility structures that 
contain any lead-bearing materials at least once per month. You must 
repair any gaps, breaks, separations, leak points or other possible 
routes for emissions of lead to the atmosphere within one week of 
identification unless you obtain approval for an extension from the 
Administrator before the repair period is exceeded.

Sec.  63.545  What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?

    (a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a 
standard operating procedures manual that describes in detail the 
measures that will be put in place and implemented to control the 
fugitive dust emissions from the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) Plant roadways.
    (2) Plant buildings.
    (3) Accidental releases.
    (4) Battery storage area.
    (5) Equipment maintenance.
    (6) Material storage areas.
    (7) Material handling areas.
    (b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval when 
initially developed and any time changes are made.
    (c) The controls specified in the standard operating procedures 
manual must at a minimum include the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Cleaning. Where a cleaning practice is specified, you must 
clean by wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a filter rated by the 
manufacturer to achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency for 0.3 micron 
particles in a manner that does not generate fugitive lead dust.
    (2) Plant roadways and paved areas. You must pave all areas subject 
to vehicle traffic and you must clean the pavement twice per day, 
except on days when natural precipitation makes cleaning unnecessary or 
when sand or a similar material has been spread on plant roadways to 
provide traction on ice or snow. Limited access and limited use 
roadways such as unpaved roads to remote locations on the property may 
be exempt from this requirement if they are used infrequently (no more 
than one round trip per day).
    (3) Accidental releases. You must initiate cleaning of all affected 
areas within one hour after detection of any accidental release of lead 
dust that exceeds 10 pounds (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) reportable quantity for lead 
at 40 CFR 302.4).
    (4) Battery storage areas. You must inspect any batteries that are 
not stored in a total enclosure once each week and move any broken 
batteries to an enclosure within 72 hours of identification. You must 
clean residue from broken batteries within 72 hours of identification.
    (5) Materials storage and handling areas. You must wash each 
vehicle at each exit of the material storage and handling areas. The 
vehicle wash must include washing of tires, undercarriage and exterior 
surface of the vehicle followed by vehicle inspection.
    (6) Equipment maintenance. You must perform all maintenance 
activities that could generate lead dust in a manner that minimizes 
emissions of fugitive dust. This must include one or more of the 
following:
    (i) Performing maintenance inside a total permanent enclosure 
maintained at negative pressure.
    (ii) Performing maintenance inside a temporary enclosure and use a 
vacuum system either equipped with a filter rated by the manufacturer 
to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 percent for 0.3 micron 
particles or routed to an existing control device permitted for this 
activity.
    (iii) Performing maintenance inside a partial enclosure and use of 
wet suppression sufficient to prevent dust formation.
    (iv) Decontamination of equipment prior to removal from an 
enclosure.
    (v) Immediate repair of ductwork or structure leaks without an 
enclosure if the time to construct a temporary

[[Page 584]]

enclosure would exceed the time to make a temporary or permanent 
repair, or if construction of an enclosure would cause a higher level 
of emissions than if an enclosure were not constructed.
    (vi) Activities required for inspection of fabric filters and 
maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and replacement are 
not required to be conducted inside of total enclosures. Used fabric 
filters must be placed in sealed plastic bags or containers prior to 
removal from a baghouse.
    (7) Material transport. You must collect and transport all lead 
bearing dust (i.e. lead bearing material which is a dust) within closed 
conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof containers unless the 
collection and transport activities are contained within a total 
enclosure. All other lead bearing material must be contained and 
covered for transport outside of a total enclosure in a manner that 
prevents spillage or dust formation. Intact batteries and lead ingot 
product are exempt from the requirement to be covered for transport.
    (d) Your standard operating procedures manual must specify that 
records be maintained of all pavement cleaning, vehicle washing, and 
battery storage inspection activities performed to control fugitive 
dust emissions.
    (e) You must pave all grounds on the facility or plant groundcover 
sufficient to prevent wind-blown dust. You may use dust suppressants on 
unpaved areas that will not support a groundcover (e.g., roadway 
shoulders, steep slopes, limited access and limited use roadways).
    (f) As provided in Sec.  63.6(g), as an alternative to the 
requirements specified in this section, you can demonstrate to the 
Administrator (or delegated State, local, or Tribal authority) that an 
alternative measure(s) is equivalent or better than a practice(s) 
described in this section.

Sec.  63.546  Compliance dates.

    (a) For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later than January 
6, 2014.
    (b) For affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate compliance with 
the requirements of this subpart by January 5, 2012 or upon startup of 
operations, whichever is later.

Sec.  63.547  Test methods.

    (a) You must use the test methods from appendix A of part 60 as 
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section to determine 
compliance with the emissions standards for lead compounds specified in 
Sec.  63.543(a) and (b).
    (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to select the 
sampling port location and the number of traverse points.
    (2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 or EPA Method 5D 
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, section 8.3 for positive pressure 
fabric filters, to measure volumetric flow rate.
    (3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to 
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas.
    (4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to determine 
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) EPA Method 12 or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 to 
determine compliance with the lead compound emissions standards. The 
minimum sample volume must be 2.0 dry standard cubic meters (70 dry 
standard cubic feet) for each run. You must perform three test runs and 
you must determine compliance using the average of the three runs.
    (b) You must use the following test methods in appendix A of part 
60 listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, as 
specified, to determine compliance with the emissions standards for 
total hydrocarbons specified in Sec.  63.543(c) through (f).
    (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to select the 
sampling port location and number of traverse points.
    (2) The Single Point Integrated Sampling and Analytical Procedure 
of Method 3B to measure the carbon dioxide content of the stack gases 
when using either EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2.
    (3) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to measure 
moisture content of the stack gases.
    (4) EPA Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to measure total 
hydrocarbons emissions. The minimum sampling time must be 1 hour for 
each run. You must perform a minimum of three test runs. You must 
calculate a 1-hour average total hydrocarbons concentration for each 
run and use the average of the three 1-hour averages to determine 
compliance.
    (c) You must correct the measured total hydrocarbons concentrations 
to 4 percent carbon dioxide as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) If the measured percent carbon dioxide is greater than 0.4 
percent in each compliance test, you must determine the correction 
factor using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA12.002

Where:

F = Correction factor (no units).
CO2 = Percent carbon dioxide measured using EPA Method 3A 
or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, where the measured carbon 
dioxide is greater than 0.4 percent.

    (2) If the measured percent carbon dioxide is equal to or less than 
0.4 percent, you must use a correction factor (F) of 10.
    (3) You must determine the corrected total hydrocarbons 
concentration by multiplying the measured total hydrocarbons 
concentration by the correction factor (F) determined for each 
compliance test.
    (d) You must use the following test methods in appendix A of part 
60 listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, as 
specified, to determine compliance with the emissions standards for 
dioxins and furans specified in Sec.  63.543(c).
    (1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to select the 
sampling port location and the number of traverse points.
    (2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 or EPA Method 5D 
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, section 8.3 for positive pressure 
fabric filters to measure volumetric flow rate.
    (3) EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to 
determine the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack 
gas.
    (4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to determine 
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to determine the 
dioxins and furans concentration.
    (e) You must determine the dioxins and furans toxic equivalency by 
following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Measure the concentration of each dioxins and furans congener 
shown in Table 3 of this subpart using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7. You must correct the concentration of dioxins and furans 
in terms of toxic equivalency to 7 percent O2 using Equation 
3 of this section.

[[Page 585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA12.003

Where:

Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration adjusted to 7 
percent oxygen.
Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration measured in 
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
(20.9-7) = 20.9 percent oxygen--7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen 
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 
percent.

    (2) For each dioxins and furans congener measured as specified in 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, multiply the congener concentration 
by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 3 to 
this subpart.
    (3) Sum the values calculated as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins and furans 
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.

Sec.  63.548  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a 
standard operating procedures manual that describes in detail 
procedures for inspection, maintenance, and bag leak detection and 
corrective action plans for all baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge 
filters) that are used to control process vents, process fugitive, or 
fugitive dust emissions from any source subject to the lead emissions 
standards in Sec. Sec.  63.543, 63.544, and 63.545, including those 
used to control emissions from building ventilation.
    (b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual for 
baghouses required by paragraph (a) of this section to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
    (c) The procedures that you specify in the standard operating 
procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance must, at a 
minimum, include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of 
this section.
    (1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell.
    (2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers 
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper 
functioning of removal mechanisms.
    (3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
    (4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to 
ensure proper operation.
    (5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning 
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (6) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type 
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using 
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
    (7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the 
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air 
leaks.
    (8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and 
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent 
means.
    (9) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, 
continuous operation of a bag leak detection system, unless a system 
meeting the requirements of paragraph (m) of this section for a 
continuous emissions monitoring system is installed for monitoring the 
concentration of lead.
    (d) The procedures you specify in the standard operating procedures 
manual for baghouse maintenance must include, at a minimum, a 
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the baghouse 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section, must meet the specification and requirements of 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at 
concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains 
per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative particulate matter loadings.
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate 
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (4) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in a 
manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'' EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14) and the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the 
system.
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (6) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating 
procedures manual required under paragraph (a) of this section. You 
cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease 
the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless 
such adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection that 
demonstrates that the baghouse is in good operating condition.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, you must install the bag leak detector downstream of the 
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (f) You must include in the standard operating procedures manual 
required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective action plan that 
specifies the procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak 
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a 
minimum, the procedures that you will use to determine and record the 
time and cause of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to 
minimize emissions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be 
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (2) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the 
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to, 
those listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device.

[[Page 586]]

    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (g) Baghouses equipped with high efficiency particulate air (or 
HEPA) filters as a secondary filter used to control emissions from any 
source subject to the lead emission standards in Sec.  65.543(a) or 
(b), are exempt from the requirement to be equipped with a bag leak 
detection system. You must monitor and record the pressure drop across 
each HEPA filter system daily. If the pressure drop is outside the 
limit(s) specified by the filter manufacturer, you must take 
appropriate corrective measures, which may include but not be limited 
to those given in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn 
or broken filters.
    (2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the 
control device.
    (3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other 
control devices
    (4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (h) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator used as 
a secondary control device for any source subject to the lead emission 
standards in Sec.  63.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the requirement to 
be equipped with a bag leak detection system.
    (i) If you use a wet scrubber to control particulate matter and 
metal hazardous air pollutant emissions from a process vent to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions standards, you 
must monitor and record the pressure drop and water flow rate of the 
wet scrubber during the initial performance or compliance test 
conducted to demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limit under 
Sec.  63.543(a) or (b). Thereafter, you must monitor and record the 
pressure drop and water flow rate values at least once every hour and 
you must maintain the pressure drop and water flow rate at levels no 
lower than 30 percent below the pressure drop and water flow rate 
measured during the initial performance or compliance test.
    (j) You must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (4) of this section to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans emissions standards. 
During periods of startup and shutdown, the requirements of paragraph 
(j)(4) of this section do not apply. Instead, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the standard for total hydrocarbon by meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  63.543(l).
    (1) Continuous temperature monitoring. You must install, calibrate, 
maintain, and continuously operate a device to monitor and record the 
temperature of the afterburner or furnace exhaust streams consistent 
with the requirements for continuous monitoring systems in Sec.  63.8.
    (2) Prior to or in conjunction with the initial performance or 
compliance test to determine compliance with Sec.  63.543(c), you must 
conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature monitoring device 
according to Sec.  63.8(e). The definitions, installation 
specifications, test procedures, and data reduction procedures for 
determining calibration drift, relative accuracy, and reporting 
described in Performance Specification 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, 
sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be used to conduct the 
evaluation. The temperature monitoring device must meet the following 
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the 
average temperature identified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
    (ii) The monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed 2 
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature identified in paragraph 
(j)(3) of this section.
    (iii) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20 
percent.
    (iv) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards 
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system 
or an alternate reference, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator.
    (3) You must monitor and record the temperature of the afterburner 
or the furnace exhaust streams every 15 minutes during the initial 
performance or compliance test for total hydrocarbons and dioxins and 
furans and determine an arithmetic average for the recorded temperature 
measurements.
    (4) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards for 
total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, you must maintain an 
afterburner or exhaust temperature such that the average temperature in 
any 3-hour period does not fall more than 28 [deg]Celsius 
(50[emsp14][deg]Fahrenheit) below the average established in paragraph 
(j)(3) of this section.
    (k) You must install, operate, and maintain a digital differential 
pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor each total enclosure 
as described in paragraphs (k)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You must install and maintain a minimum of one building digital 
differential pressure monitoring system at each of the following three 
walls in each total enclosure that has a total ground surface area of 
10,000 square feet or more:
    (i) The leeward wall.
    (ii) The windward wall.
    (iii) An exterior wall that connects the leeward and windward wall 
at a location defined by the intersection of a perpendicular line 
between a point on the connecting wall and a point on its furthest 
opposite exterior wall, and intersecting within plus or minus ten 
meters of the midpoint of a straight line between the two other 
monitors specified. The midpoint monitor must not be located on the 
same wall as either of the other two monitors.
    (2) You must install and maintain a minimum of one building digital 
differential pressure monitoring system at the leeward wall of each 
total enclosure that has a total ground surface area of less than 
10,000 square feet.
    (3) The digital differential pressure monitoring systems must be 
certified by the manufacturer to be capable of measuring and displaying 
negative pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 millimeters mercury 
(0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) with a minimum accuracy of plus or 
minus 0.001 millimeters of mercury (0.0005 inches of water).
    (4) You must equip each digital differential pressure monitoring 
system with a continuous recorder.
    (5) You must calibrate each digital differential pressure 
monitoring system in accordance with manufacturer's specifications at 
least once every 12 calendar months or more frequently if recommended 
by the manufacturer.
    (l) Except as provided in paragraphs (l)(2) or (3) of this section, 
all new or reconstructed sources subject to the requirements under 
Sec.  63.543 must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for 
measuring lead emissions. In addition to the General Provisions 
requirements for CEMS in Sec.  63.8(c) that are referenced in Table 1 
to this subpart, you must comply with the requirements for CEMS 
specified in paragraph (m) of this section.
    (1) Sources subject to the emissions limits for lead compounds 
under Sec.  63.543(b) must install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions 
within 180 days of promulgation by the EPA of performance 
specifications for lead CEMS.
    (2) Prior to 180 days after the EPA promulgates performance 
specifications

[[Page 587]]

for CEMS used to measure lead concentrations, you must use the 
procedure described in Sec.  63.543(g)(1) to determine compliance.
    (3) Vents from control devices that serve only to control emissions 
from buildings containing lead bearing materials are exempt from the 
requirement to install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions.
    (m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead emissions, you must install a 
continuous emissions monitoring system with a sensor in a location that 
provides representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the 
sampling location of the CEMS used to measure lead emissions, taking 
into account the manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor 
is that portion of the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and 
generates an output proportional to that flow rate.
    (1) The continuous emissions monitoring system must be designed to 
measure the exhaust gas flow rate over a range that extends from a 
value of at least 20 percent less than the lowest expected exhaust flow 
rate to a value of at least 20 percent greater than the highest 
expected exhaust gas flow rate.
    (2) The continuous emissions monitoring system must be equipped 
with a data acquisition and recording system that is capable of 
recording values over the entire range specified in paragraph (m)(1) of 
this section.
    (3) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the 
continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with the 
applicable Performance Specification in appendix B to part 60 of this 
chapter.
    (4) You must operate the continuous emissions monitoring system and 
record data during all periods of operation of the affected facility 
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for 
periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with 
monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality 
assurance or quality control activities including, as applicable, 
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments.
    (5) If you have a CEMS to measure lead emissions, you must 
calculate the average lead concentration and flow rate monthly to 
determine compliance with Sec.  63.543(a).
    (6) When the continuous emissions monitoring system is unable to 
provide quality assured data, the following apply:
    (i) When data are not available for periods of up to 48 hours, the 
highest recorded hourly emissions rate from the previous 24 hours must 
be used.
    (ii) When data are not available for 48 or more hours, the maximum 
daily emissions rate based on the previous 30 days must be used.

Sec.  63.549  Notification requirements.

    (a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of 
Sec.  63.9. Electronic notifications are encouraged if suitable for the 
specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on 
CD or hard copy), and when required by this subpart.
    (b) You must submit the fugitive dust control standard operating 
procedures manual required under Sec.  63.545(a) and the standard 
operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  
63.548(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with a 
notification that the smelter is seeking review and approval of these 
plans and procedures. You must submit this notification no later than 
January 7, 2013. For sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after January 5, 2012, you must submit this notification 
no later than 180 days before startup of the constructed or 
reconstructed secondary lead smelter, but no sooner than January 5, 
2012. For an affected source that has received a construction permit 
from the Administrator or delegated authority on or before January 5, 
2012, you must submit this notification no later than January 7, 2014.

Sec.  63.550  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) You must comply with all of the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.10 that are referenced in Table 1 to 
this subpart.
    (1) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). 
However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting if suitable for the 
specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on 
CD or hard copy), and when required by this subpart.
    (2) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years after the 
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, 
report, or record, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) The standard operating procedures manuals required in 
Sec. Sec.  63.545(a) and 63.548(a) must be submitted to the 
Administrator in electronic format for review and approval of the 
initial submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
    (c) You must maintain for a period of 5 years, records of the 
information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (13) of this section.
    (1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the 
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required 
under Sec.  63.548(c) as part of the practices described in the 
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  
63.548(a).
    (4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate 
values for wet scrubbers used to control metal hazardous air pollutant 
emissions from process fugitive sources as required in Sec.  63.548(i).
    (5) Electronic records of the output from the continuous 
temperature monitor required in Sec.  63.548(j)(1), and an 
identification of periods when the 3-hour average temperature fell 
below the minimum established under Sec.  63.548(j)(4), and an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (6) Electronic records of the continuous pressure monitors for 
total enclosures required in Sec.  63.548(k), and an identification of 
periods when the pressure was not maintained as required in Sec.  
63.544(c)(1).
    (7) Records of any time periods power was lost to the continuous 
pressure monitors for total enclosures required in Sec.  63.548(k) and 
records of loss of power to the air handling system maintaining 
negative pressure on total enclosures.
    (8) Records of the inspections of facility enclosures required in 
Sec.  63.544(d).
    (9) Records of all cleaning and inspections required as part of the 
practices described in the standard operating procedures manual 
required under Sec.  63.545(a) for the control of fugitive dust 
emissions.
    (10) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed to 
monitor lead emissions meeting the requirements of Sec.  63.548(m).
    (11) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (12) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.543(k), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation.

[[Page 588]]

    (13) Records of any periods of startup or shutdown of a furnace and 
actions taken to minimize emissions during that period in accordance 
with Sec.  63.543(l).
    (d) You must comply with all of the reporting requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced 
in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) You must submit reports no less frequent than specified under 
Sec.  63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions.
    (2) Once a source reports a violation of the standard or excess 
emissions, you must follow the reporting format required under Sec.  
63.10(e)(3) until a request to reduce reporting frequency is approved 
by the Administrator.
    (e) In addition to the information required under the applicable 
sections of Sec.  63.10, you must include in the reports required under 
paragraph (d) of this section the information specified in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (14) of this section.
    (1) Records of the concentration of lead in each process vent, and 
records of the rolling 12-month flow-weighted average concentration of 
lead compounds in vent gases calculated monthly as required in Sec.  
63.543(a), except during the first year when the concentration is 
calculated using the method described in Sec.  63.543(a)(2).
    (2) Records of the concentration of total hydrocarbon and dioxins 
and furans in each process vent that has established limits for total 
hydrocarbon and dioxins and furans as required in Sec.  63.543(c).
    (3) Records of all periods when monitoring using a CEMS for lead or 
total hydrocarbon was not in compliance with applicable limits.
    (4) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system 
specified in Sec.  63.548.
    (5) A description of the procedures taken following each bag leak 
detection system alarm pursuant to Sec.  63.548(f)(1) and (2).
    (6) A summary of the records maintained as part of the practices 
described in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses 
required under Sec.  63.548(a), including an explanation of the periods 
when the procedures were not followed and the corrective actions taken.
    (7) An identification of the periods when the pressure drop and 
water flow rate of wet scrubbers used to control process fugitive 
sources dropped below the levels established in Sec.  63.548(i), and an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (8) Records of the temperature monitor output, in 3-hour block 
averages, for those periods when the temperature monitored pursuant to 
Sec.  63.548(j) fell below the level established in Sec.  63.548(j)(4).
    (9) Certification that the plastic separation process for battery 
breakers required in Sec.  63.543(m) was operated at all times the 
battery breaker was in service.
    (10) Records of periods when the pressure was not maintained as 
required in Sec.  63.544(c) or power was lost to the continuous 
pressure monitoring system as required in Sec.  63.548(k).
    (11) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the 
report must include the number, duration, and a brief description for 
each type of malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 
caused or may have caused any applicable emissions limitation to be 
exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken 
during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in 
accordance with Sec.  63.543(k), including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction.
    (12) A summary of the fugitive dust control measures performed 
during the required reporting period, including an explanation of the 
periods when the procedures outlined in the standard operating 
procedures manual pursuant to Sec.  63.545(a) were not followed and the 
corrective actions taken. The reports must not contain copies of the 
daily records required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements 
of the standard operating procedures manuals required under Sec.  
63.545(a).
    (13) Records of any periods of startup or shutdown of a furnace 
including an explanation of the periods when the procedures required in 
Sec.  63.543(l) were not followed and the corrective actions taken.
    (14) You must submit records pursuant to paragraphs (e)(14)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and as 
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except 
opacity data, electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange by using 
the Electronic Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/). Only data collected using test methods compatible 
with the Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to this requirement to 
be submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
    (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and required by 
this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data 
electronically into EPA's Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic 
Reporting Tool as mentioned in paragraph (e)(14)(i) of this section. 
Only data collected using test methods compatible with the Electronic 
Reporting Tool are subject to this requirement to be submitted 
electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
    (iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraph (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section must be 
sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  
63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a 
report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic 
media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator 
retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph 
(e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.

Sec.  63.551  Implementation and enforcement.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, 
or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. 
Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot be transferred to 
the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of 
this section.

[[Page 589]]

    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
63.541, 63.543 through 63.544, Sec.  63.545, and Sec.  63.546.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in this subpart.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.

Sec.  63.552  Affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedance of 
emissions limit during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this 
subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by 
malfunction, as defined at Sec.  63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 
assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of 
the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense 
shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (a) Affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative defense in 
any action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 
notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must 
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices.
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance.
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emissions limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs.
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions.
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage.
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 
health.
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices.
    (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs.
    (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions.
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction 
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that 
were the result of the malfunction.
    (b) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected source 
experiencing an exceedance of its emissions limit(s) during a 
malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days 
after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, it wishes to avail 
itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense, shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of 
this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written 
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45-day 
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the 
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 
exceedance.

                 Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reference                             Applies to subpart X                       Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1...................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.2...................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.3...................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.4...................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.5...................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.6(a), (b), (c)......................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.6(d)................................  No..........................................  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i)..........................  No..........................................  See 63.543(k) for general
                                                                                        duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).........................  No.                                           .........................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)........................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.6(e)(2).............................  No..........................................  Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3).............................  No.                                           .........................
63.6(f)(1).............................  No.                                           .........................
63.6(g)................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.6(h)................................  No..........................................  No opacity limits in
                                                                                        rule.
63.6(i)................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.6(j)................................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.7(a)-(d)............................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.7(e)(1).............................  No..........................................  See 63.543(j).
63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)......................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.7(f), (g), (h)......................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.8(a)-(b)............................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.8(c)(1)(i)..........................  No..........................................  See 63.543(k) for general
                                                                                        duty requirement.

[[Page 590]]

 
63.8(c)(1)(ii).........................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)........................  No..........................................  .........................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)......................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.8(d)(3).............................  Yes, except for last sentence.                .........................
63.8(e)-(g)............................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g),             Yes.                                          .........................
 (h)(1)through (3), (h)(5) and (6), (i)
 and (j).
63.9(f)................................  No.                                           .........................
63.9(h)(4).............................  No..........................................  Reserved.
63.10 (a)..............................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.10 (b)(1)...........................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.10(b)(2)(i).........................  No.                                           .........................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)........................  No..........................................  See 63.550 for
                                                                                        recordkeeping of
                                                                                        occurrence and duration
                                                                                        of malfunctions and
                                                                                        recordkeeping of actions
                                                                                        taken during
                                                                                        malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).......................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)..............  No.                                           .........................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)............  Yes.                                          .........................
63.(10)(b)(3)..........................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)........................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.10(c)(10)-(11)......................  No..........................................  See 63.550 for
                                                                                        recordkeeping of
                                                                                        malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)...................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.10(c)(15)...........................  No.                                           .........................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)........................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.10(d)(5)............................  No..........................................  See 63.550(e)(11) for
                                                                                        reporting of
                                                                                        malfunctions.
63.10(e)-(f)...........................  Yes.                                          .........................
63.11..................................  No..........................................  Flares will not be used
                                                                                        to comply with the
                                                                                        emission limits.
63.12 to 63.15.........................  Yes.                                          .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63--Emissions Limits for Secondary Lead
                            Smelting Furnaces
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   You must meet the following emissions
                                             limits . . . \a\
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   Total hydrocarbon   Dioxin and furan
For vents from these processes .     ppm by volume       (dioxins and
               . .                   expressed as     furans) nanograms/
                                   propane corrected  dscm  expressed as
                                     to 4 percent      TEQ corrected to
                                    carbon dioxide       7 percent O2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collocated blast and              20 ppmv...........  0.50 ng/dscm.
 reverberatory furnaces (new and
 existing).
Collocated blast and              360 ppmv..........  170 ng/dscm.
 reverberatory furnaces when the
 reverberatory furnace is not
 operating for units that
 comments construction or
 reconstruction before June 9,
 1994.
Collocated blast and              70 ppmv...........  170 ng/dscm.
 reverberatory furnaces when the
 reverberatory furnace is not
 operating for units that
 commence construction or
 reconstruction after June 9,
 1994.
Blast furnaces that commence      360 ppmv..........  170 ng/dscm.
 construction or reconstruction
 before June 9, 1994.
Blast furnaces that commence      70 ppmv...........  170 ng/dscm.
 construction or reconstruction
 after June 9, 1994.
Blast furnaces that commence      70 ppmv...........  10 ng/dscm.
 construction or reconstruction
 after May 19, 2011.
Reverberatory and electric        12 ppmv...........  0.20 ng/dscm.
 furnaces that commence
 construction or reconstruction
 before May 19, 2011.
Reverberatory and electric        12 ppmv...........  0.10 ng/dscm.
 furnaces that commence
 construction or reconstruction
 after May 19, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ There are no standards for dioxins and furans during periods of
  startup and shutdown.

       Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Toxic
                  Dioxin/furan congener                     equivalency
                                                              factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin...............               1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............             0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............             0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............             0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.........            0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........................           0.001

[[Page 591]]

 
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran...................             0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran.................            0.05
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran.................             0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................             0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................             0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-32933 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```