10134 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

provided in the labeling can be 

reasonably expected to result in a 

significant injury, must comply with the 

requirements in Traceability for 

Implantable Devices, Clause 7.5.9.2 in 

ISO 13485, in addition to all other 

requirements in this part, as 

appropriate. 

(e) Enforcement. The failure to 

comply with any applicable 

requirement in this part renders a 

device adulterated under section 501(h) 

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act. Such a device, as well as any 

person responsible for the failure to 

comply, is subject to regulatory action. 

§ 820.15 Clarification of concepts. 

Manufacturers subject to this part 

shall construe the following terms in 

ISO 13485 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 820.7) as follows: 

(a) Organization shall have the 

meaning of ‘‘manufacturers’’ as defined 

in this part. 

(b) Safety and performance shall have 

the meaning of ‘‘safety and 

effectiveness’’ for the purposes of this 

part. The phrase ‘‘safety and 

performance’’ does not relieve a 

manufacturer from any obligation to 

implement controls or other measures 

that provide reasonable assurance of 

safety and effectiveness. 

(c) Validation of processes shall have 

the meaning of ‘‘process validation’’ as 

defined in this part. 

Subpart B—Supplemental Provisions 

§ 820.20–§ 820.30 [Reserved] 

§ 820.35 Control of records. 

In addition to the requirements of 

Clause 4.2.5 in ISO 13485 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 820.7), Control of 

Records, the manufacturer must obtain 

the signature for each individual who 

approved or re-approved the record, and 

the date of such approval, on that record 

and include the below information in 

certain records as follows: 

(a) Records of complaints. In addition 

to Clause 8.2.2 in ISO 13485, Complaint 

Handling, the manufacturer must record 

the following information, at a 

minimum, for complaints that must be 

reported to FDA under part 803 of this 

chapter, complaints that a manufacturer 

determines must be investigated, and 

complaints that the manufacturer 

investigated regardless of those 

requirements: 

(1) The name of the device; 

(2) The date the complaint was 

received; 

(3) Any unique device identifier (UDI) 

or universal product code (UPC), and 

any other device identification(s); 

(4) The name, address, and phone 

number of the complainant; 

(5) The nature and details of the 

complaint; 

(6) Any corrective action taken; and 

(7) Any reply to the complainant. 

(b) Records of servicing activities. In 

adhering to Clause 7.5.4 in ISO 13485, 

Servicing Activities, the manufacturer 

must record the following information, 

at a minimum, for servicing activities: 

(1) The name of the device serviced; 

(2) Any unique device identifier (UDI) 

or universal product code (UPC), and 

any other device identification(s); 

(3) The date of service; 

(4) The individual(s) who serviced the 

device; 

(5) The service performed; and 

(6) Any test and inspection data. 

(c) Unique device identification. In 

addition to the requirements of Clauses 

7.5.1, 7.5.8, and 7.5.9 in ISO 13485, the 

UDI must be recorded for each medical 

device or batch of medical devices. 

(d) Confidentiality. Records deemed 

confidential by the manufacturer may be 

marked to aid FDA in determining 

whether information may be disclosed 

under the public information regulation 

in part 20 of this chapter. 

§ 820.40 [Reserved] 

§ 820.45 Device labeling and packaging 

controls. 

In addition to the requirements of 

Clause 7.5.1 of ISO 13485 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 820.7), Control of 

production and service provision, each 

manufacturer must establish and 

maintain procedures that provide a 

detailed description of the activities to 

ensure the integrity, inspection, storage, 

and operations for labeling and 

packaging, during the customary 

conditions of processing, storage, 

handling, distribution, and where 

appropriate, use of the device. 

(a) The manufacturer must ensure 

labeling and packaging has been 

examined for accuracy prior to release 

or storage, where applicable, to include 

the following: 

(1) The correct unique device 

identifier (UDI) or universal product 

code (UPC), or any other device 

identification(s); 

(2) Expiration date; 

(3) Storage instructions; 

(4) Handling instructions; and 

(5) Any additional processing 

instructions. 

(b) The release of the labeling for use 

must be documented in accordance with 

Clause 4.2.5 of ISO 13485. 

(c) The manufacturer must ensure 

labeling and packaging operations have 

been established and maintained to 

prevent errors, including, but not 

limited to, inspection of the labeling 

and packaging immediately before use 

to assure that all devices have correct 

labeling and packaging, as specified in 

the medical device file. Results of such 

labeling inspection must be documented 

in accordance with Clause 4.2.5 of ISO 

13485. 

Subparts C–O—[Reserved] 

Dated: February 8, 2022. 

Janet Woodcock, 

Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03227 Filed 2–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619; FRL–8602–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV43 

Review of Standards of Performance 

for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

Plants and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

Area Sources Technology Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposal presents the 

results of the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) review of the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

Plants and the technology review (TR) 

for the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area 

Sources as required under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). The EPA is proposing 

revised lead (Pb) emission limits for grid 

casting, paste mixing, and lead 

reclamation operations for both the area 

source NESHAP (for new and existing 

sources) and under a new NSPS subpart 

(for lead acid battery facilities that begin 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after February 23, 2022). In 

addition, the EPA is proposing the 

following amendments for both the area 

source NESHAP (for new and existing 

sources) and under a new NSPS subpart 

(for lead acid battery facilities that begin 

construction, reconstruction or 

modification after February 23, 2022): 

Performance testing once every 5 years 

to demonstrate compliance; work 

practices to minimize emissions of 

fugitive lead dust; increased inspection 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10135 

frequency of fabric filters; bag leak 

detection systems for facilities above a 

certain size; clarification of activities 

that are considered to be lead 

reclamation activities; electronic 

reporting of performance test results and 

semiannual compliance reports; and the 

removal of exemptions for periods of 

start-up, shut down, and malfunctions. 

The EPA is also proposing a revision to 

the applicability provisions in the area 

source NESHAP such that facilities 

which make lead-bearing battery parts 

or process input material, including but 

not limited to grid casting facilities and 

lead oxide manufacturing facilities, will 

be subject to the area source NESHAP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2022. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before March 25, 2022. 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

February 28, 2022, we will hold a 

virtual public hearing. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

information on requesting and 

registering for a public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0619, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0619 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0619. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0619, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff also continues to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. Hand deliveries 

and couriers may be received by 

scheduled appointment only. For 

further information on EPA Docket 

Center services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Amanda Hansen, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D243–02), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–3165; fax number: 

(919) 541–4991; and email address: 

hansen.amanda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public hearing. 

Please note that because of current 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as 

well as state and local orders for social 

distancing to limit the spread of 

COVID–19, the EPA cannot hold inperson public meetings at this time. 

To request a virtual public hearing, 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the virtual hearing will be 

held on March 10, 2022. The hearing 

will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time 

(ET) and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. ET. 

The EPA may close a session 15 minutes 

after the last pre-registered speaker has 

testified if there are no additional 

speakers. The EPA will announce 

further details at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/leadacid-battery-manufacturing-areasources-national-emission. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing no later than 1 business 

day after a request has been received. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/leadacid-battery-manufacturing-areasources-national-emission or contact the 

public hearing team at (888) 372–8699 

or by email at SPPDpublichearing@

epa.gov. The last day to pre-register to 

speak at the hearing will be March 7, 

2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will 

post a general agenda that will list preregistered speakers in approximate 

order at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/leadacid-battery-manufacturing-areasources-national-emission. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 5 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to hansen.amanda@epa.gov. The EPA 

also recommends submitting the text of 

your oral testimony as written 

comments to the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/leadacid-battery-manufacturing-areasources-national-emission. While the 

EPA expects the hearing to go forward 

as set forth above, please monitor our 

website or contact the public hearing 

team at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to 

determine if there are any updates. The 

EPA does not intend to publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by March 2, 2022. The EPA may not be 

able to arrange accommodations without 

advanced notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Although 

listed, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10136 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0619. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/ any information 

that you consider to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed below. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Due to public health concerns related 

to COVID–19, the Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only. Our Docket Center 

staff also continues to provide remote 

customer service via email, phone, and 

webform. Hand deliveries or couriers 

will be received by scheduled 

appointment only. For further 

information and updates on EPA Docket 

Center services, please visit us online at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the CDC, local area health departments, 

and our federal partners so that we can 

respond rapidly as conditions change 

regarding COVID–19. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI, and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI and 

note the docket ID. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and note the docket ID. If 

assistance is needed with submitting 

large electronic files that exceed the file 

size limit for email attachments, and if 

you do not have your own file sharing 

service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

to request a file transfer link. If sending 

CBI information through the postal 

service, please send it to the following 

address: OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2021–0619. The mailed CBI 

material should be double wrapped and 

clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. Throughout this notice 

the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is 

intended to refer to the EPA. We use 

multiple acronyms and terms in this 

preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BSER Best System of Emissions Reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online 

EIS Emissions Inventory System 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR Federal Register 

GACT Generally Available Control 

Technology 

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meters 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

Pb lead 

RACT Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

RBLC Reasonably Available Control 

Technology, Best Available Control 

Technology, and Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate Clearinghouse 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

tpy tons per year 

TR technology review 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory 

mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

VE visible emissions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10137 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

1. NSPS Authority 

2. NESHAP Authority 

B. What is this source category and how do 

the current rules regulate its emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking 

A. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

B. How does the EPA perform the 

technology review? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Rule 

Summary and Rationale 

A. Results of Ambient Air Monitoring Data 

and Model Screening Analyses 

B. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our NSPS review, 

and what is the rationale for those 

decisions? 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review, and what is the rationale for 

those decisions? 

D. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

E. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

D. What are the benefits? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, KKa 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

E. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The source category that is the subject 

of this proposal is lead acid battery 

manufacturing regulated under CAA 

section 111 New Source Performance 

Standards and under CAA section 112 

Generally Available Control Technology 

Standards (GACT). The North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code for the lead acid battery 

manufacturing industry is 335911. This 

NAICS code provides a guide for readers 

regarding the entities that this proposed 

action is likely to affect. Federal, state, 

local, and tribal government entities 

would not be affected by this proposed 

action. As defined in the Initial List of 

Categories of Sources Under Section 

112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 

July 16, 1992) and Documentation for 

Developing the Initial Source Category 

List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91– 

030, July 1992), the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing source category is any 

facility engaged in producing lead acid 

or lead acid storage batteries, including, 

but not limited to starting-lightningignition (SLI) batteries and industrial 

storage batteries. The category includes, 

but is not limited to, the following lead 

acid battery manufacturing steps: Lead 

oxide production, grid casting, paste 

mixing, and three-process operation 

(plate stacking, burning, and assembly). 

The lead acid battery manufacture 

source category was identified as a 

pollutant specific minor source category 

in the Priorities for New Source 

Performance Standards Under the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1977 (see EPA– 

450/3–78–019, April 1978), and added 

to the priority list in the Revised 

Prioritized List of Source Categories for 

NSPS Promulgation (see EPA–450/3– 

79–023, March 1979). 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/leadacid-battery-manufacturing-new-sourceperformance-standards and https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/lead-acid-batterymanufacturing-area-sources-nationalemission. Following publication in the 

Federal Register, the EPA will post the 

Federal Register version of the proposal 

and key technical documents at these 

same websites. 

The proposed changes to the CFR that 

would be necessary to incorporate the 

changes proposed in this action are 

presented in an attachment to the 

memoranda titled: Proposed Regulation 

Edits for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

PPPPPP: National Emission Standards 

for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

Area Sources and Proposed New 

Subpart KKa for 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

KKa: Standards of Performance for Lead 

Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants. 

These memoranda are available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619) and include 

a redline version of the regulation for 

the NESHAP and new proposed 

regulatory language for the new NSPS 

subpart. Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA will also post a 

copy of the memorandum for the area 

source NESHAP and the attachments to 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution//lead-acid-batterymanufacturing-area-sources-nationalemission. Regarding the NSPS, a copy of 

the memorandum and the attachments 

for the proposed regulatory language for 

the new subpart KKa will be posted to 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/lead-acid-batterymanufacturing-new-sourceperformance-standards. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

1. NSPS Authority 

The EPA’s authority for this rule is 

CAA section 111, which governs the 

establishment of standards of 

performance for stationary sources. 

Section 111 of the CAA requires the 

EPA Administrator to list categories of 

stationary sources that in the 

Administrator’s judgment cause or 

contribute significantly to air pollution 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10138 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1For categories of area sources subject to GACT 

standards, CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide 

that the residual risk review requirement of CAA 

section 112(f)(2) does not apply. No such exemption 

exists for the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology 

review. 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. 42 

U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A). The EPA must 

then issue performance standards for 

new (and modified or reconstructed) 

sources in each source category. 42 

U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). These standards 

are referred to as new source 

performance standards or NSPS. The 

EPA has the authority to define the 

scope of the source categories, 

determine the pollutants for which 

standards should be developed, set the 

emission level of the standards, and 

distinguish among classes, types, and 

sizes within categories in establishing 

the standards. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b). 

The CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 

U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the EPA to 

‘‘at least every 8 years review and, if 

appropriate, revise’’ new source 

performance standards. The CAA 

section 111(a)(1) (U.S.C. 7411(a)(1)) 

provides that performance standards are 

to ‘‘reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into 

account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any non-air quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1). 

This definition makes clear that the EPA 

is to determine both the best system of 

emission reduction (BSER) for the 

regulated sources in the source category 

and the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through application of the 

BSER. The EPA must then, under CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate 

standards of performance for new 

sources that reflect that level of 

stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5) 

precludes the EPA from prescribing a 

particular technological system that 

must be used to comply with a standard 

of performance. Rather, sources can 

select any measure or combination of 

measures that will achieve the standard. 

Pursuant to the definition of new 

source in CAA 111(a), proposed 

standards of performance apply to 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

date of publication of such proposed 

standards in the Federal Register. 

2. NESHAP Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 301 of 

the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.). Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA 

to review standards promulgated under 

CAA section 112(d) and revise them ‘‘as 

necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less often 

than every 8 years following 

promulgation of those standards. This is 

referred to as a ‘‘technology review’’ and 

is required for all standards established 

under CAA section 112(d) including 

generally available control technology 

standards that apply to area sources.1

This action constitutes the 112(d)(6) 

technology review for the Lead Acid 

Battery Manufacturing area source 

NESHAP. 

Several additional CAA sections are 

relevant to this action as they 

specifically address regulation of 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 

from area sources. Collectively, CAA 

sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) are 

the basis of the Area Source Program 

under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, 

which provides the framework for 

regulation of area sources under CAA 

section 112. 

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to identify at least 30 

HAP that pose the greatest potential 

health threat in urban areas with a 

primary goal of achieving a 75-percent 

reduction in cancer incidence 

attributable to HAP emitted from 

stationary sources. As discussed in the 

Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 

FR 38706, 38715, July 19, 1999), the 

EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from 

area sources that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas, 

and these HAP are commonly referred 

to as the ‘‘30 urban HAP.’’ 

Section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the 

EPA to list sufficient categories or 

subcategories of area sources to ensure 

that area sources representing 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP are subject to regulation. The EPA 

implemented these requirements 

through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy by identifying and setting 

standards for categories of area sources 

including the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing source category that is 

addressed in this action. 

CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that 

for area source categories, in lieu of 

setting maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards (which 

are generally required for major source 

categories), the EPA may elect to 

promulgate standards or requirements 

for area sources ‘‘which provide for the 

use of generally available control 

technology or management practices 

[GACT] by such sources to reduce 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants.’’ 

In developing such standards, the EPA 

evaluates the control technologies and 

management practices that reduce HAP 

emissions that are generally available 

for each area source category. Consistent 

with the legislative history, we can 

consider costs and economic impacts in 

determining what constitutes GACT. 

B. What is this source category and how 

do the current rules regulate its 

emissions? 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

includes any facility engaged in 

producing lead acid batteries. Pursuant 

to the CAA 111 authority described 

above, performance standards were set 

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK for the 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing source 

category on April 16, 1982 (47 FR 

16564). Many years later, pursuant to 

the CAA 112 authority described above, 

GACT standards were set for the Lead 

Acid Battery Manufacturing source 

category on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 135). 

As noted above, this proposed action 

presents the required CAA 112(d)(6) 

technology review for that source 

category. 

Under 40 CFR 60 subpart KK a lead 

acid battery manufacturing plant is 

defined as any plant that produces a 

storage battery using lead and lead 

compounds for the plates and sulfuric 

acid for the electrolyte. While 40 CFR 63 

subpart PPPPPP defines a lead acid 

battery manufacturing plant in the same 

manner as 40 CFR 60 subpart KK, the 

source category under section 112 

includes, but is not limited to, lead 

oxide production, grid casting, paste 

mixing, and three-process operation 

(battery assembly). 

The batteries manufactured at these 

facilities include starting, lighting, and 

ignition batteries primarily used in 

automobiles as well as industrial and 

traction batteries. Industrial batteries 

include those used for uninterruptible 

power supplies and other backup power 

applications, and traction batteries are 

used to power electric vehicles such as 

forklifts. 

The lead acid battery manufacturing 

process begins with the stamping or 

casting of Pb into grids. Lead oxide 

powder is mixed with water and 

sulfuric acid to form a stiff paste, which 

is then pressed onto the lead grids, 

creating plates. Lead oxide may be 

produced by the battery manufacturer, 

as is the case for many larger battery 

manufacturing plants or may be 

purchased from a supplier. The plates 

are cured, stacked, and connected into 

groups that form the individual 

elements of a lead acid battery. This 

stacking, connecting, and assembly of 

the plates into battery cases is generally 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10139 

2East Penn Manufacturing, located in 

Pennsylvania. 

performed in one operation termed the 

‘‘three process operation.’’ 

There are 40 Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing facilities in the United 

States located across 18 states and 

owned by 19 different entities. There is 

a significant size range across the parent 

companies: From about 20 to 150,000 

employees, and annual revenues from 

about $4 million to $47 billion. Eight 

parent companies, owning ten LAB 

facilities, are small businesses with 

revenues from $4 million to $147 

million. In addition, a small entity owns 

two lead oxide manufacturing facilities 

that will become subject to the proposed 

NESHAP under our proposed revision 

to the applicability provisions. 

Based on our review, we conclude 

that all 40 sources are currently subject 

to the NSPS for lead acid battery 

manufacturing plants in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart KK. Subpart KK applies to all 

lead acid battery manufacturing plants 

constructed, reconstructed, or modified 

since 1982 if they produce or have the 

design capacity to produce in one day 

batteries containing an amount of Pb 

equal to or greater than 5.9 megagrams 

(6.5 tons). Based on available 

information, the production capacities 

for all 40 existing facilities are above 

this threshold. The current NSPS 

(‘‘NSPS KK’’) contains emissions limits 

for Pb and opacity limits from each of 

the specific lead acid battery 

manufacturing processes, including grid 

casting, lead oxide manufacturing, paste 

mixing, and three-process operation. It 

also includes Pb emissions limits and 

opacity limits for lead reclamation and 

other lead-emitting processes. As for the 

NESHAP, in 2007, the EPA promulgated 

GACT standards for the Lead Acid 

Battery Manufacturing area source 

category under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

PPPPPP. The GACT standards include 

the same emissions and opacity limits 

as those in the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing NSPS KK as well as 

some additional monitoring 

requirements that were not included in 

the NSPS KK. The NESHAP applies to 

all lead acid battery manufacturing 

facilities that are area sources regardless 

of production capacity. The EPA 

estimates that one of the 40 lead acid 

battery manufacturing facilities in the 

U.S. that is subject to the NSPS KK is 

a major source as defined under CAA 

section 112, and is therefore not subject 

to the area source GACT standards.2 In 

addition to these 40 facilities, we 

estimate that there are six facilities that 

have one or more processes involved in 

the production of lead acid batteries, but 

they do not make the final battery 

product. One parent company is a small 

entity owning two facilities. These six 

facilities are not currently subject to 

either the NSPS KK or the area source 

NESHAP. 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

During our reviews of the current 

NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK) and 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

PPPPPP) and the development of the 

proposed new NSPS subpart (‘‘NSPS 

KKa’’) (i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

KKa) and proposed amendments to the 

NESHAP, the EPA used emissions and 

supporting data from the 2017 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) and Toxics 

Release Inventory (TRI). 

A variety of sources were used to 

compile a list of facilities subject to 

subpart KK and subpart PPPPPP. The 

list was based on information 

downloaded from the EPA’s 

Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (ECHO) database and the EPA’s 

Emissions Inventory System (EIS) 

database. The ECHO system contains 

compliance and permit data for 

stationary sources regulated by the EPA. 

The ECHO database was queried by 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

and NAICS code as well as by subpart. 

The NEI data from 2017 were also 

queried through the EIS database. The 

industry association, Battery Council 

International (BCI), reviewed the draft 

facility list and provided updates where 

necessary. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

In addition to the NEI, TRI, ECHO, 

and EIS databases, the EPA reviewed 

the additional information sources 

listed below to determine whether there 

have been developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies by 

lead acid battery manufacturing sources. 

These include the following: 

• Air permit limits and selected 

compliance options from permits that 

were available online. A number of 

states did not have permits available 

online or only had some permits 

available online. Those permits were 

obtained through working with the EPA 

Regional Offices or communicating with 

states. Through these efforts, we 

obtained and reviewed state permits for 

37 of the 40 plants currently subject to 

the rules to inform the technology 

review and BSER review and to obtain 

other relevant information about the 

source category such as monitoring 

approaches applied. We also obtained 

and reviewed six permits for the six 

additional facilities that, under the 

proposed revisions to the NESHAP’s 

applicability provisions, would become 

subject to the NESHAP. 

• Information provided by state 

agencies. This included such data as 

emissions tests, inspection reports, and 

emissions reports. 

• Communication with the industry 

association representing the industry in 

the affected NAICS category and their 

members. 

• Search of the Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT)/Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT)/ 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC). 

• A 1989 draft review document 

(titled Review of New Source 

Performance Standards for Lead-Acid 

Battery Manufacture, Preliminary Draft, 

October 1989), which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

III. Analytical Procedures and 

Decision-Making 

A. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

In reviewing an NSPS, the EPA 

reevaluates the BSER factors 

considering any advances in 

technologies, changes in cost, and other 

factors. The EPA evaluates whether 

available information from the 

implementation and enforcement of 

current requirements indicate that 

emission limitations and percent 

reductions beyond those required by the 

standards are achieved in practice. In 

reviewing an NSPS the following is 

considered: 

• Expected growth for the source 

category, including how many new 

facilities, reconstructions, and 

modifications may trigger NSPS in the 

next 8 years. 

• Advances in control technologies, 

process operations, design or efficiency 

improvements, or other factors that 

would lead to selection of a more 

stringent BSER. This includes an 

analysis of costs (capital and annual 

costs) and emission reductions (cost 

effectiveness) expected from such 

advances as well as any non-air quality 

health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements associated with 

those advances. 

In addition to reviewing the BSER 

that were considered at the time NSPS 

subpart KK was developed, we reviewed 

additional data sources developed since 

NSPS subpart KK was promulgated in 

1982. We also reviewed the NSPS KK 

and the available data to determine if 

any requirements associated with the 

current standards need to be updated to 

ensure compliance. See sections II.C 

and II.D of this preamble for information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10140 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

on the specific data sources that were 

reviewed as part of this action. 

B. How does the EPA perform the 

technology review? 

For the NESHAP area source GACT 

standard, our technology review 

primarily focuses on the identification 

and evaluation of developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that have occurred since 

the standards were promulgated. Where 

we identify such developments, we 

analyze their technical feasibility, 

estimated costs, energy implications, 

and non-air environmental impacts. We 

also consider the emission reductions 

associated with applying each 

development. This analysis informs our 

decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to 

revise the emissions standards. In 

addition, we consider the 

appropriateness of applying controls to 

new sources versus retrofitting existing 

sources. For this exercise, we consider 

any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original GACT standards; 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the original 

GACT standards) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction; 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

original GACT standards; 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original GACT 

standards; and 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original GACT 

standards). 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

were considered at the time we 

originally developed the NESHAP, we 

review a variety of data sources in our 

investigation of potential practices, 

processes, or controls to consider. See 

sections II.C and II.D of this preamble 

for information on the specific data 

sources that were reviewed as part of 

the technology review. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Rule Summary and Rationale 

A. Results of Ambient Air Monitoring 

Data and Model Screening Analyses 

Since the primary HAP emitted from 

this source category is Pb, also a criteria 

pollutant, and because of significant 

concerns regarding the potential for Pb 

emissions from various sources to pose 

impacts to public health, including in 

environmental justice impacted 

communities, the EPA decided to 

conduct an analysis of available ambient 

air monitoring data near lead acid 

battery facilities as well as a screening 

analysis using dispersion modeling to 

assess the potential for impacts due to 

emissions from lead acid battery 

facilities. The results of these analyses 

are presented below and in more detail 

in the memoranda titled Emissions and 

Ambient Monitoring Data Used for the 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Rule 

Reviews and Assessment of Potential 

Health Impacts of Lead Emissions in 

Support of the 2022 Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing Technology Review of 

Area Sources Proposed Rule, which are 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule. These modeling results, along with 

the available monitoring data, indicate 

that the area sources are not likely to 

pose significant risks or impacts to 

human health if they are complying 

with the NESHAP. 

1. Ambient Air Monitoring Analysis 

Ten lead acid battery facilities have 

Pb ambient air monitors at or near the 

facility. The list of facilities and details 

on the data analysis can be found in the 

memorandum Emissions and Ambient 

Monitoring Data Used for the Lead Acid 

Battery Manufacturing Rule Reviews. 

Nine of the ten facilities have had Pb 

levels well below the Pb National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS), which is 0.15 mg/m3 (based 

on a 3-month rolling average), at all 

times in the past 3 years (2018–2020). 

One facility in Kentucky had a NAAQS 

exceedance (where 3-month rolling 

average of monitored Pb levels exceeded 

0.15 mg/m3) in 2018 due to a baghouse 

malfunction. This malfunction was due 

to failure to operate and maintain the 

control equipment in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices, and the malfunction 

was dealt with through an agreed order 

between the Energy and Environment 

Cabinet of Kentucky and the facility. 

The order is available in the docket for 

this proposed rule. The issue was fixed 

in 2018, and the ambient air Pb levels 

at the Kentucky facility were well below 

the NAAQS in 2019 and 2020. 

2. Dispersion Modeling Screening 

Analysis 

The EPA conducted a screening 

analysis using the American 

Meteorological Society/Environmental 

Protection Agency Regulatory Model 

(AERMOD) dispersion model for 17 lead 

acid battery facilities. This subset of 

facilities was chosen because they had 

an ambient monitor nearby (7 facilities; 

including 6 area source and one major 

source) or their total estimated Pb 

emissions were greater than 0.05 tons 

per year (tpy) (10 additional facilities). 

Results from this screening prompted 

more refined modeling of the seven 

facilities with monitors nearby. In this 

refined modeling, other lead-emitting 

sources located within 10 km of one of 

the monitors were included. The 

modeled annual concentrations of Pb 

were compared to monitored annual 

concentrations. Two adjustment factors 

were applied to the modeled annual 

concentrations: One to convert the 

annual concentrations to a 3-month 

rolling average, which is the form of the 

NAAQS, and the second to adjust the 

modeled result based on the ambient 

concentrations monitored at each site. 

The adjusted maximum modeled 

concentrations were well below the 

NAAQS of 0.15 mg/m3 for all facilities 

modeled. More details on the modeling 

of the area sources are presented in 

Assessment of Potential Health Impacts 

of Lead Emissions in Support of the 

2022 Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

Technology Review of Area Sources 

Proposed Rule, which is available in the 

docket. Based on these analyses, 

because all results were below the lead 

NAAQS, we conclude that the area 

sources are not likely to pose significant 

risks or impacts to human health if they 

are complying with the NESHAP. The 

one major source, while not subject to 

the area source NESHAP, is a wellcontrolled facility with emission limits 

equal to or more stringent than the 

emission limits in the NESHAP 

pursuant to state requirements. We 

intend to address this major source 

facility (and any other potential future 

major sources) in a separate future 

action. 

B. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our NSPS review, 

and what is the rationale for those 

decisions? 

This action presents the EPA’s review 

of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart KK pursuant CAA 111(b)(1)(B). 

As described in section III.A of this 

preamble, the statutory review of the 

NSPS KK for lead acid battery 

manufacturing plants focused on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10141 

3See the final NSPS published on April 16, 1982 

(47 FR 16564) and the Lead-Acid Battery 

Manufacture-Background Information for 

Promulgated Standards, November 1980, EPA–450/ 

3–79–028b. 

whether there are any emission 

reduction techniques that are used in 

practice that achieve greater emission 

reductions than those currently required 

by the NSPS KK for lead acid battery 

manufacturing and whether any of these 

developments in practices have become 

the ‘‘best system of emissions 

reduction.’’ Based on this review, we 

have determined that fabric filters with 

at least 99 percent control efficiency 

represent the updated BSER for grid 

casting and lead reclamation operations, 

and fabric filters with secondary filters 

(such as a high efficiency particulate air 

(HEPA) filter) are the updated BSER for 

paste mixing operations at large 

facilities with capacity to process 

greater than or equal to 150 tons per day 

(tpd) of Pb (referred to as large facilities 

for the remainder of this preamble). As 

such, we are proposing revised Pb 

emission limits to reflect the updated 

BSER for grid casting, lead reclamation, 

and paste mixing. The proposed 

updated standards would limit Pb from 

grid casting operations to 0.04 

milligrams Pb per dry standard cubic 

meter (0.04 mg/dscm) (0.0000175 grains 

per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)) 

and from lead reclamation facilities to 

0.45 mg/dscm (0.000197 gr/dscf). The 

proposed updated standards would 

limit Pb to 0.1 milligrams Pb per dry 

standard cubic meter (0.1 mg/dscm, 

equivalent to 0.0000437 gr/dscf) for 

paste mixing operations at large 

facilities. The analyses and rationale for 

these proposed rule changes are 

explained below. 

For facilities with capacity to process 

less than 150 tpd of Pb (referred to as 

small facilities for the remainder of this 

preamble), the EPA is proposing to 

retain the standard of 1 mg/dscm for 

paste mixing facilities and to retain the 

opacity limits for these operations (0 

percent for grid casting and paste 

mixing and 5 percent for lead 

reclamation). The EPA is also proposing 

to retain the Pb emission limits and 

opacity limits for three-process 

operations, other lead-emitting 

operations, and lead oxide 

manufacturing. The analyses and 

rationale for proposing to retain the 

current standards for these operations 

are also explained below. 

With regard to monitoring, testing, 

and other compliance assurance 

measures, we have identified proposed 

improvements to requirements 

associated with the current standards 

that will help ensure compliance, 

including: Bag leak detection system 

requirements for fabric filters at large 

facilities; increased inspections of fabric 

filters at all facilities without secondary 

filters to ensure proper performance; 

performance testing for compliance 

once every 5 years at all facilities (with 

allowances for representative stacks as 

determined by the delegated authority); 

and work practices to minimize fugitive 

dust emissions. 

The results and proposed decisions 

based on the analyses performed 

pursuant to CAA section 111(b) are 

presented in more detail below. 

Pursuant to CAA section 111(a), the 

proposed standards included in this 

action apply to facilities that begin 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after February 23, 2022. 

a. Revised Pb Emission Limit for Grid 

Casting Operations and Lead 

Reclamation 

New source performance standards 

were first proposed in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart KK for the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing source category on 

January 14, 1980 (45 FR 2790). The EPA 

proposed lead emission limits based on 

fabric filters with 99 percent efficiency 

for grid casting and lead reclamation 

operations. The EPA documented its 

rationale for these proposed lead 

emission limits in the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacture-Background Information 

for Proposed Standards (EPA–450/3– 

79–028a, November 1979). In public 

comments on the 1980 proposed rule, 

stakeholders had multiple concerns 

with the selection of fabric filtration as 

the best system of emission reduction 

for these operations. Commenters stated 

that these facilities were normally 

controlled by impingement scrubbers (at 

the time of the 1980 proposal). They 

further pointed out that the only grid 

casting facility that was controlled by a 

fabric filtration system at that time was 

plagued by fires and asserted that spark 

arrestors (a safety device used to prevent 

ignition of flammable emissions) would 

not solve the problem. Apart from the 

problem of fires, commenters contended 

that contaminants present in the 

exhaust gases from grid casting and lead 

reclamation would cause frequent bag 

blinding. In light of these issues, in 1982 

the EPA promulgated final standards in 

NSPS subpart KK for grid casting and 

lead reclamation based on impingement 

scrubbers with 90 percent efficiency, 

instead of fabric filters.3

As discussed in the memorandum 

Technology Review and NSPS Review 

for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Technology 

Review Memorandum’’), since the 

promulgation of the 1982 NSPS KK, it 

has become feasible and common for 

lead acid battery manufacturing plants 

to control Pb emissions from the grid 

casting and lead reclamation processes 

with fabric filters without the issues 

(e.g., fires and bag blinding) identified 

in the 1982 rulemaking. For example, 

during the current technology and BSER 

reviews, we discovered that most 

facilities (at least 30 of the 40 facilities 

currently subject to subpart KK) are now 

using fabric filters (with estimated 

efficiency of at least 99 percent), and 

sometimes combined with other 

controls (HEPA filters or scrubber) to 

control emissions from grid casting. 

Furthermore, we did not identify any 

facilities using only a wet scrubber. 

Therefore, we conclude that fabric 

filters are clearly feasible and well 

demonstrated as an appropriate control 

technology for grid casting operations. 

Also, based on our research, no facilities 

currently do lead reclamation. However, 

based on our review of 37 permits, we 

found two permits that mention having 

lead reclamation equipment, and those 

two lead reclamation processes are 

controlled with fabric filters. 

With a reduction efficiency of 99 

percent, compared to the 90 percent 

reduction efficiency for the emissions 

control technology available when the 

1982 NSPS KK was developed, fabric 

filters represent an improvement in 

emissions reduction technology capable 

of reducing Pb emissions further than 

that of the current emission limits based 

on scrubbers. 

To assess whether fabric filters are the 

best system of emission reduction for 

controlling Pb emissions from grid 

casting and lead reclamation processes, 

we examined the costs and emission 

reductions from installing and operating 

fabric filters on large and small 

facilities. In the 1989 draft review of the 

NSPS KK, EPA determined that a large 

facility was one that could produce in 

any one day an amount of lead equal to 

150 tons, a medium facility could 

produce lead equal to 100 tons in any 

one day, and a small facility was one 

with the capacity to produce in any one 

day lead equal to 20 tons. Based on 

available data for existing facilities in 

this action, we determined that the 

threshold of 150 tons of lead per day is 

still an appropriate cut-off for large 

facilities. However, based on available 

information we determined that a 

broader category was appropriate to 

define all other facilities (with less than 

150 tons per day capacity), which we 

refer to collectively as ‘‘small’’ facilities 

in this action. 

To calculate costs, emission 

reductions, and cost effectiveness for 

grid casting and lead reclamation, we 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10142 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4The 1989 draft review document (titled Review 

of New Source Performance Standards for LeadAcid Battery Manufacture, Preliminary Draft, 

October 1989) is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

5See Secondary Lead RTR Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

29032, May 19, 2011, and the Final rule, 77 FR 556, 

January 5, 2012. 

used the estimated emissions from a 

1989 EPA preliminary draft review of 

the NSPS KK as well as cost of controls 

from that 1989 document (scaled up to 

2020 dollars). Further information 

regarding cost estimates and emission 

estimates are provided in the 

memoranda titled: Estimated Cost 

Impacts of Best System of Emission 

Reduction Review of Subpart KK and 

Subpart PPPPPP Technology Review 

and Emissions and Ambient Monitoring 

Data Used for the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing Rule Reviews, which are 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule. We estimated the costs of (1) a new 

grid casting and lead reclamation 

facility using fabric filters with 99 

percent efficiency and (2) a theoretical 

‘‘baseline’’ facility using a scrubber with 

90 percent efficiency, consistent with 

the current standards in the NSPS 

subpart KK.4 The baseline facility and 

their estimated emissions were 

developed using information from the 

1989 study including Pb emissions 

estimates for the grid casting and lead 

reclamation process in the 1989 study 

that are representative of the level of 

emissions that would be emitted by a 

facility complying with the current 

NSPS KK standard (based on the 

application of an impingent wet 

scrubber at 90 percent reduction 

efficiency). A small and large baseline 

facility were then compared to a new 

model small and large facility with the 

application of a fabric filter at 99 

percent reduction efficiency. The results 

of the cost and emissions analysis are 

discussed below. 

Grid Casting Facility. We estimate Pb 

emissions for a small and large 

uncontrolled grid casting facility are 0.5 

tpy and 1.3 tpy, respectively. We 

estimate Pb emissions for a small and 

large baseline grid casting facility which 

is complying with the current NSPS KK 

emission limit based on a wet scrubber 

with 90 percent efficiency are 0.05 tpy 

and 0.13 tpy, respectively. We estimate 

Pb emissions for a small and large 

model facility that would comply with 

an emission limit based on the 

application of a fabric filter with 99 

percent efficiency are 0.005 tpy and 

0.013 tpy, respectively. 

Capital costs for the baseline facility 

to purchase and install a wet scrubber 

are estimated to be $114,000 for a small 

facility, and $316,000 for a large facility. 

Annualized costs for the baseline 

facility are estimated to be $56,000 for 

a small facility and $115,000 for a large 

facility. 

Capital costs for the model facility to 

purchase and install a fabric filter with 

99 percent efficiency are estimated to be 

$167,000 for a small facility and 

$402,000 for a large facility. Annualized 

costs for the model facility are estimated 

to be $79,600 for a small facility and 

$155,000 for a large facility. 

The total reductions in Pb emissions 

with a fabric filter compared to 

uncontrolled emissions are estimated to 

be 0.45 tpy for a small facility and 1.2 

tpy for a large facility. The incremental 

reductions in Pb emissions with a fabric 

filter compared to the current NSPS KK 

baseline controls (i.e., impingent 

scrubber) are estimated to be 0.045 tpy 

(i.e., 0.05 tpy¥0.005 tpy = 0.045 tpy) for 

a small facility and incremental cost 

effectiveness for a small grid casting 

facility is $524,000 per ton of Pb 

reduced. Incremental reductions in Pb 

emissions are estimated to be 0.12 tpy 

for a large facility with incremental cost 

effectiveness of $333,000 per ton of Pb. 

Detailed cost information and analyses 

for both sizes of facilities are shown in 

the Technology Review Memorandum 

available in the docket. 

The results of the cost and emissions 

analyses indicate that the estimated cost 

effectiveness for the application of 

fabric filter to control Pb emissions are 

within the range of what the EPA has 

considered in other rulemakings to be a 

cost-effective level of control for Pb 

emissions relative to the baseline plant. 

For example, in the 2011 and 2012 

Secondary Lead Smelting RTR proposed 

and final rules, the EPA accepted a cost 

effectiveness up to about $1.3M/ton for 

metal HAP (mainly Pb, based on 2009 

dollars).5 We also evaluated the 

addition of secondary HEPA filters 

along with fabric filters as a possible 

BSER, as described in the Technology 

Review Memorandum. However, we 

determined such additional controls are 

not cost effective for grid casting 

operations. 

Given that fabric filters are a welldemonstrated and feasible control 

technology for grid casting (as described 

above) and given that this technology is 

cost effective, based on this review, we 

are proposing to determine that fabric 

filters with at least 99 percent control 

efficiency represent the new BSER for 

grid casting. Furthermore, we have not 

identified any non-air environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. 

Therefore, we are proposing to revise 

the Pb emissions limit for grid casting 

facilities to reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

the application of the proposed BSER. 

The EPA is proposing in a new NSPS 

subpart (subpart KKa) a Pb emission 

limit of 0.04 mg/dscm that will apply to 

grid casting operations that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after February 23, 2022. 

Lead Reclamation Facility. We 

estimate Pb emissions for three types of 

facilities, as follows: (1) For a small and 

large uncontrolled lead reclamation 

facility are 0.4 tpy and 1.1 tpy, 

respectively; (2) for a small and large 

baseline lead reclamation facility (i.e., 

based on the 1982 NSPS KK and 

application of an impingent wet 

scrubber with 90 percent control 

efficiency, as described above) are 0.04 

tpy and 0.11 tpy, respectively; and (3) 

for a small and large model lead 

reclamation facility (based on 

application of a fabric filter with 99 

percent control efficiency) are 0.004 tpy, 

and 0.011 tpy, respectively. 

Capital costs for baseline facilities to 

purchase and install a wet scrubber are 

estimated to be $74,000 for a small and 

large lead reclamation facility based on 

our assumption that all plant sizes have 

the same size reclamation facility at the 

time reclamation occurs at such 

facilities (as explained above, we have 

not identified any facilities currently 

conducting lead reclamation). 

Annualized costs for the baseline 

facilities are estimated to be $27,500 for 

a small facility and $39,700 for a large 

facility. 

Capital costs for the model facility to 

purchase and install a baghouse with 99 

percent efficiency are estimated to be 

$91,000 for a small and large facility. 

Annual costs for the model facility are 

estimated to be $36,000 for a small 

facility and $52,700 for a large facility. 

The cost effectiveness of application 

of a fabric filter compared to 

uncontrolled emissions for a small lead 

reclamation facility is $90,900 per ton of 

Pb reduced and for a large facility is 

$48,000 per ton of Pb. The incremental 

reductions in emissions are 0.036 tpy 

year for a small reclamation operation 

and 0.1 tpy for a large unit. The 

estimated incremental cost effectiveness 

of a fabric filter compared to NSPS KK 

baseline (application of a scrubber) for 

a small lead reclamation facility is 

$236,000 per ton of Pb reduced and for 

a large facility is $130,000 per ton of Pb. 

Detailed cost information for both 

facility size categories is shown in the 

Technology Review Memorandum. 

Based on our research, we estimate 

that no facilities currently do lead 

reclamation. However, based on our 

review of 37 permits, we found two 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10143 

permits that mention having lead 

reclamation equipment, and those two 

reclamation processes are controlled 

with fabric filters. We also evaluated the 

addition of secondary HEPA filters 

along with fabric filters as a possible 

BSER, as described in the Technology 

Review Memorandum. However, we 

determined such additional controls are 

not cost effective for lead reclamation 

activities. 

Overall, based on our review, we 

conclude that it is technically feasible 

for facilities to control Pb emissions 

from lead reclamation with a fabric 

filter. Regarding costs, results of the cost 

analyses indicate that the cost 

effectiveness estimated are within the 

range of what the EPA has considered 

to be a cost-effective level of control for 

Pb emissions relative to the baseline 

model plant, as described above under 

the grid casting analysis section. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

determine that fabric filters with at least 

99 percent control efficiency represent 

the new BSER for lead reclamation 

facilities and we are proposing to revise 

the Pb emissions limit for lead 

reclamation facilities to reflect the 

degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the proposed 

BSER. The EPA is proposing in a new 

NSPS subpart (subpart KKa) a revised 

Pb emissions limit of 0.45 mg/dscm that 

will apply to lead reclamation 

operations that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

February 23, 2022. 

b. Revised Pb Emission Limit for Paste 

Mixing Facilities 

In the 1982 NSPS KK final rule April 

16, 1982 (47 FR 16564), the EPA 

determined BSER for paste mixing was 

based on application of a fabric filter 

control system. The use of HEPA filters 

as a potential secondary control was not 

mentioned in either the 1980 proposed 

rule January 14, 1980 (45 FR 2790) or 

1982 final rule April 16, 1982 (47 FR 

16564) Federal Register notices. 

However, since that time, as 

discussed in the Technology Review 

Memorandum, HEPA filters have 

become readily available. A notable 

number of facilities in the lead acid 

battery manufacturing source category 

now use HEPA filters to control 

emissions from some processes as a 

secondary control device following a 

fabric filter. HEPA filters are capable of 

removing at least 99.97 percent of 

particles with a size of 0.3 microns (mm). 

The diameter specification of 0.3 mm 

responds to the worst case—the most 

penetrating particle size. Particles that 

are larger or smaller are trapped with 

even higher efficiency. With a 

secondary HEPA filter’s capability to 

achieve additional reduction efficiency 

of at least 99.97 percent following the 

fabric filters compared to the 99 percent 

reduction efficiencies of the primary 

fabric filter, the BSER emissions control 

technology available when the NSPS KK 

was developed (i.e., fabric filters) 

combined with a secondary HEPA filter 

represents an improvement in emissions 

reduction technology. The EPA 

evaluated and considered this 

improvement in emissions reduction 

technology at grid casting, paste mixing, 

three-process operations, lead oxide 

manufacturing, and lead reclamation 

facilities. As described below, adding 

secondary HEPA filters to a paste 

mixing facility’s current control device 

were found to be cost effective at large 

facilities while this technology was not 

found to be cost effective for the other 

processes or facilities considered. The 

results are discussed below and in more 

detail in the Technology Review 

Memorandum. 

Paste Mixing Facility. Based on our 

review, paste mixing operations have 

the highest potential for Pb emissions 

compared to all other processes at lead 

acid battery manufacturing facilities. We 

identified 16 facilities (40 percent of the 

total) that currently have secondary 

filters to achieve much higher control 

efficiency on their paste mixing 

operations. This technology has been 

clearly demonstrated to be feasible for a 

number of facilities. 

Emissions for a small and large 

baseline paste mixing facility (based on 

application of a fabric filter) are 

estimated to be 0.026 tpy and 0.10 tpy, 

respectively. Emissions for a small and 

large model facility with a fabric filter 

plus a secondary HEPA filter are 

estimated to be 8E–06 tpy, and 3E–05 

tpy, respectively. With reduction 

efficiency of 99.97 percent, we estimate 

Pb emissions reductions from baseline 

facility compared to model facility with 

secondary HEPA filter would be 0.026 

and 0.1 tpy for small and large facilities, 

respectively. 

Capital costs for a new small facility 

to add secondary HEPA filters on their 

paste mixing process are estimated to be 

$57,000 and for a new large facility 

$135,000. Annualized costs are 

estimated to be $43,700 for a new small 

facility and $88,800 for a new large 

facility. We note that the EPA 1989 

preliminary draft NSPS KK review 

document (cited above), indicated that 

facilities could achieve significant cost 

savings by recirculating air back into the 

plant and from recycling baghouse dust 

which would reduce annual cost 

estimates. However, based on our 

review of available information, we do 

not have reason to believe that these 

savings would occur today due to OSHA 

and RCRA requirements and potentially 

other factors such as various state 

requirements. This topic is discussed in 

more detail in the Technology Review 

Memorandum cited above. We solicit 

comment regarding whether or not cost 

savings would occur with the 

installation and operation of secondary 

HEPA filters and if so, how much 

savings would actually occur. 

Given the estimated annual costs and 

estimated reductions described above, 

the incremental cost effectiveness of a 

fabric filter plus a secondary HEPA filter 

for a new small facility is estimated to 

be $1,680,000 per ton of Pb reduced and 

for a new large facility is $888,000 per 

ton of Pb reduced (in 2020 dollars) as 

compared to the baseline paste mixing 

facilities (based on application of a 

fabric filter). Detailed cost information 

for both facility size categories are 

provided in the Technology Review 

Memorandum. 

The results of the cost and emission 

analyses indicate that the estimated cost 

effectiveness for new large facilities is 

within the range of what the EPA has 

considered to be a cost-effective level of 

control for Pb emissions. Furthermore, 

as mentioned above, we identified 16 

facilities that currently apply this 

technology, which indicates the 

technology is clearly feasible. However, 

the results of the cost and emission 

analyses indicate that the estimated cost 

effectiveness for small facilities is above 

the range of what the EPA has 

considered to be a cost-effective level of 

control for Pb emissions. Further 

information regarding the cost estimates 

and emission estimates are provided in 

the memoranda titled: Estimated Cost 

Impacts of Best System of Emission 

Reduction Review of Subpart KK and 

Subpart PPPPPP Technology Review 

and Emissions and Ambient Monitoring 

Data Used for the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing Rule Reviews, which are 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule. 

Since secondary HEPA filters have 

been demonstrated and are a feasible 

control technology for paste mixing (as 

described above), and because the 

estimated cost effectiveness for large 

facilities is within the range of values 

accepted previously by EPA, the EPA is 

proposing to determine that secondary 

HEPA filters represent the new BSER for 

paste mixing at large facilities. 

Furthermore, we have not identified any 

significant non-air environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. 

Therefore, we are proposing to revise 

the Pb emissions limit for paste mixing 

operations at large facilities to reflect 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10144 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of 

the proposed BSER. The EPA is 

proposing in a new NSPS subpart 

(subpart KKa) standard of performance 

of 0.1 mg/dscm that will apply to paste 

mixing operations at large facilities (i.e., 

at facilities with capacity to process in 

one day an amount equal to or greater 

than 150 tons of Pb) that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after February 23, 2022. 

We are not proposing any changes to the 

emissions limits for paste mixing 

operations at small facilities because of 

the costs and cost effectiveness, and 

potential economic impacts to the 

smaller facilities to add secondary filters 

if they were to undergo reconstruction, 

modification, or build a new small 

facility. Therefore, we are proposing to 

retain the current standard of 1.00 mg/ 

dscm for paste mixing operations at 

small facilities that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after February 23, 2022, as 

the analysis showed that the application 

of a fabric filter at 99 percent continues 

to be the BSER for these facilities. 

c. Review of Other Process Units at Lead 

Acid Battery Manufacturing Facilities 

In addition to paste mixing, we also 

evaluated potential updates to the BSER 

and the emissions limits for the threeprocess operations and lead oxide 

manufacturing but did not identify any 

cost-effective options. Therefore, we are 

proposing to retain in the new NSPS 

subpart (subpart KKa) the emissions 

limits for these two emissions sources 

(i.e., 1.00 mg/dscm for three-process 

operations and 5.0 mg/kg feed for lead 

oxide manufacturing) for facilities that 

commence construction, reconstruction, 

or modification after February 23, 2022. 

The data and analyses regarding these 

operations are provided in the 

Technology Review Memorandum, 

which is available in the docket. 

d. Fabric Filter and Scrubber 

Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements That Are 

Consistent With the Requirements in 40 

CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP 

As mentioned above, we have 

identified improvements in compliance 

requirements related to the current 

performance standards for lead acid 

battery manufacturing facilities. In 

addition to proposing the revised 

performance standards discussed above, 

we are proposing minor changes to be 

included in the new NSPS subpart KKa 

to update the applicable requirements 

and enhance compliance and 

enforcement. A standard requirement 

for monitoring scrubber systems is to 

measure liquid flow rate across the 

system. The NSPS KK currently only 

requires monitoring and recording 

pressure drop across the scrubber 

system every 15 minutes. We propose to 

add an additional requirement to 

monitor and record liquid flow rate 

across each scrubbing system at least 

once every 15 minutes. We expect that 

there would be no costs associated with 

this requirement for new sources 

because this is a standard monitoring 

equipment in scrubbing systems. Many 

of the lead acid battery manufacturing 

facilities use fabric filters for controls, 

but the current NSPS subpart KK does 

not include compliance requirements 

for these devices. We propose to add 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements associated 

with the use of fabric filters to the new 

NSPS subpart KKa. These proposed 

requirements are consistent with the 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for lead 

acid battery manufacturing sources that 

use fabric filters to comply with the 

current area source GACT requirements 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP 

along with three proposed amendments 

for subpart PPPPPP in this action, as 

follows: Increased frequency of fabric 

filter inspections from semi-annually to 

monthly for fabric filters without 

secondary filters (e.g., HEPA filters); 

replacement bags on site; and addition 

of bag leak detection systems for large 

facilities that do not have secondary 

filters, as described in more detail 

below. The proposed requirements, for 

any emissions point controlled by a 

fabric filter, include the following: 

• You must perform and record 

monthly inspections and maintenance 

to ensure proper performance of each 

fabric filter unless you have a secondary 

filter (see below). This includes 

inspection of structural and filter 

integrity. 

• You must either install, maintain, 

and operate a pressure drop monitoring 

device to measure the differential 

pressure drop across the fabric filter at 

all times when the process is operating, 

and record pressure drop at least once 

per day or conduct a visible emissions 

observation at least once per day. If 

pressure drop is outside the normal 

range or visible emissions (VE) are 

detected, you must record the incident, 

and take and record immediate 

corrective action. In the case where 

pressure drop is outside the normal 

range, you must also submit a 

monitoring system performance report; 

and in the case of detected VEs, you 

must also conduct an opacity 

measurement (Method 9), and if it 

exceeds the applicable opacity standard 

then you must also submit an excess 

emissions report. 

• For systems with fabric filters 

equipped with a secondary filter, you 

may monitor (pressure drop or visible 

emissions) less frequently (weekly), and 

you may perform and record inspections 

and maintenance as directed by the 

manufacturer, but no less frequently 

than semi-annually to ensure proper 

performance of each fabric filter. 

• To ensure timely repair, facilities 

must keep replacement filters on site in 

case filters are damaged. 

e. Bag Leak Detection Systems for Large 

Facilities 

Through the review of regulations 

developed since the promulgation of the 

lead acid battery manufacturing NSPS 

KK, it was found that the NESHAP for 

Primary Lead Processing (40 CFR part 

63, subpart TTT) and Secondary Lead 

Smelters (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) 

require fabric filters (i.e., baghouses) to 

have bag leak detection systems at new 

and existing sources, unless a secondary 

HEPA filter is used. These systems 

typically include an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter 

loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in 

order to detect bag failures (e.g., tears) 

and an alarm to alert an operator of the 

failure. These bag leak detection 

systems help ensure continuous 

compliance and detect problems early 

on so that damaged fabric filters can be 

quickly inspected and repaired as 

needed to minimize or prevent the 

release of noncompliant emissions. The 

current lead acid battery manufacturing 

NSPS KK and area source NESHAP do 

not have bag leak detection system 

requirements, but based on the permit 

review, we determined that eight plants 

currently use bag leak detection 

systems. Therefore, we consider the use 

of a bag leak detection system to be a 

development in operational procedures 

that will ensure compliance with the 

NSPS KKa by identifying and correcting 

fabric filter failures earlier than would 

be indicated by the daily VE or pressure 

drop monitoring. 

The capital costs are estimated to be 

$68,000 and annualized costs of $14,000 

per baghouse. Most existing facilities 

have several stacks. Given the typical 

number of stacks at a large facility 

(about 12), we estimate the total capital 

costs for a new large facility to include 

bag leak detection systems would be 

$802,000 and annual costs to operate 

and maintain the system to be $161,000. 

However, as described in section IV.B.d 

above, these facilities will not need to 

conduct daily pressure drop readings or 

VE observations and monthly 

inspections; therefore, we expect there 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10145 

to be an associated unquantified cost 

savings and the actual total annual costs 

will be somewhat lower than the values 

shown in this paragraph. 

As discussed in section II.B above, 

there is a significant size range across 

the parent companies: From about 20 to 

150,000 employees, and annual 

revenues from about $4 million to $47 

billion. Nine parent companies, owning 

ten LAB facilities and two lead oxide 

manufacturing facilities, are small 

businesses. We assume the large 

facilities are likely to be on the higher 

end of the range with regard to number 

of employees and annual revenues and 

less likely to qualify as a small business. 

Since bag leak detection systems are a 

useful tool to help ensure compliance 

and minimize or prevent noncompliant 

emissions and given the range of 

revenues across the companies, we 

think the costs are reasonable and 

feasible for the large facilities. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing that 

large facilities (i.e., those with equal to 

or greater than 150 tpd capacity) must 

install and operate bag leak detection 

systems on units that do not have a 

secondary filter, such as a HEPA filter. 

We are also proposing that these large 

facilities that will need to install and 

operate bag leak detection systems, and 

any other facility (i.e., those with less 

than 150 tpd capacity) in the source 

category that uses bag leak detection 

systems due to state requirements or 

other reasons, will not need to conduct 

daily pressure drop readings or VE 

observations and monthly inspections 

(described in section IV.B.d above). 

With regard to small facilities, as 

mentioned above, the capital costs are 

estimated to be $68,000 and annualized 

costs of $14,000 per baghouse. The 

average area source facility has about 8 

baghouses, with a range of 1 to 33. 

Given the configurations of existing 

facilities, we assume a typical new 

small facility would have 3–6 

baghouses. Therefore, capital costs 

could be in the range of $200,000 to 

$400,000 and annual costs could be in 

the range of $42,000 to $84,000 for a 

new small facility. As discussed in 

section II.B above, there is a significant 

size range across the parent companies: 

From about 20 to 150,000 employees, 

and annual revenues from about $4M to 

$47B. Nine parent companies, owning 

ten LAB facilities and two lead oxide 

manufacturing facilities, are small 

businesses. 

Given the costs of bag leak detection 

systems and the range of size of 

companies, range of revenues and 

number of small businesses, the EPA 

has determined the costs for bag leak 

detection systems could be excessively 

burdensome for smaller facilities and 

could impose significant economic 

impacts on some of those companies; 

therefore, we propose that these 

facilities will have the monitoring 

requirements discussed in section 

IV.B.d above (i.e., inspections and VE or 

pressure drop readings), but not a 

requirement to install bag leak detection 

systems. 

f. Performance Testing 

The Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

NSPS KK requires that plants conduct 

an initial performance test for new, 

modified, or reconstructed facilities to 

establish that the emissions limits for 

that particular type of equipment can be 

met. In addition, performance tests are 

also frequently used to establish 

operating parameters that can be 

monitored to show ongoing compliance 

with the relevant standard(s). 

While the current Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing NSPS KK requires only 

an initial performance test, our review 

of permits revealed that many state and 

local air agencies require plants to 

conduct periodic performance tests. 

Almost half of all 40 facilities are 

required to conduct performance tests 

on a schedule that varies from annually 

to once every 5 years. In addition, the 

EPA has been adding requirements to 

NESHAP when other amendments are 

being made to the rules to include 

performance tests to ensure compliance. 

For instance, while the original Asphalt 

Processing and Roofing Manufacturing 

NESHAP only required an initial onetime performance test, in the 2020 RTR 

final rule the EPA established that 

performance tests must be conducted at 

least once every 5 years (85 FR 14526) 

for that source category. The Iron and 

Steel Foundries NESHAPs also require 

testing of once every 5 years. 

Furthermore, while the original 

Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP that 

was promulgated in 1995 only required 

initial performance tests for total 

hydrocarbons (THC), the regulation has 

been revised to now require annual 

performance tests for THCs (on the same 

schedule as annual testing requirements 

for Pb) and requires performance tests 

every 6 years for dioxin and furans from 

each source that emits those pollutants, 

unless the facility uses continuous 

emissions monitors. We consider these 

more frequent performance testing 

requirements to be a development in 

operational procedures that will help 

ensure continued compliance with the 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS 

KKa by identifying emissions sources 

that are no longer meeting the relevant 

standards due to equipment 

deterioration or other issues. 

The EPA is proposing to include in 

the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

NSPS subpart KKa compliance 

provisions to require owners or 

operators of lead acid battery 

manufacturing affected sources to 

conduct performance tests once every 5 

years. However, to minimize the cost 

impacts of such testing, the EPA is 

proposing to allow facilities that have 

two or more processes and stacks that 

are very similar and have the same type 

of control devices to test just one stack 

as representative of the others as 

approved by the EPA or the delegated 

authority. To explain further, in order to 

obtain approval for representative 

testing, we are proposing that facilities 

must submit a test plan to the EPA or 

the delegated authority which includes 

a detailed description of why the 

company thinks a certain stack is 

representative of other stacks (including 

input materials, detailed process 

description, and control devices) for 

review and approval by EPA or the 

delegated authority before such testing 

is performed. We are also proposing to 

require that the unit (within a group of 

stacks determined to be representative 

of one another) with the oldest 

performance test must be tested first. 

The order of testing for each subsequent 

test within that group of stacks must 

proceed such that the unit with the least 

recent performance test is the next unit 

to be tested. Thus, units with multiple, 

similar stacks will have to rotate their 

testing every 5-years, starting with the 

stack with the least recent performance 

test. Along with the test plan, we are 

also proposing that facilities must create 

a testing schedule, consistent with this 

proposed approach which indicates 

when subsequent tests will be 

performed, to be reviewed and approved 

by EPA or the delegated authority. 

We estimate that performance testing 

for Pb costs about $23,000 to test one 

stack and an additional $5,500 to test 

each additional stack during the same 

testing event. Estimated costs for a new 

facility will depend on the total number 

of stacks to be tested. We conclude these 

costs are reasonable given the 

importance of periodic testing to help 

ensure continuous compliance with the 

standards and to ensure the control 

devices continue to operate as designed. 

g. Work Practices To Minimize Fugitive 

Dust Emissions 

Through the review of permits for 

lead acid battery manufacturing 

facilities, we found that some permits 

include fugitive dust minimization 

programs. In addition, since the 

development of the Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing NSPS KK, other rules, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10146 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

including the NESHAPs for primary and 

secondary lead smelting, have required 

new and existing sources to minimize 

fugitive dust emissions at the facilities, 

such as through the paving of roadways, 

cleaning roadways, storing lead oxide in 

enclosed spaces or containers, and other 

measures. These programs are designed 

to minimize particulate Pb that has been 

deposited to the outdoor surfaces at the 

facilities from becoming airborne 

emissions and to minimize the fugitive 

dust emissions from material handling 

and other processes that occur inside 

the buildings or outdoors. Neither the 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS 

KK nor the area source NESHAP have 

any fugitive dust minimization 

requirements to limit Pb emissions from 

these sources. 

We are proposing to include in the 

NSPS subpart KKa a requirement for 

facilities to develop and implement a 

fugitive dust minimization plan, which 

must include certain elements, such as 

the following: 

i. Clean or treat surfaces used for vehicular 

material transfer activity at least monthly; 

ii. store dust-forming material in 

enclosures; and 

iii. inspect process areas daily for 

accumulating lead-containing dusts and 

wash and/or vacuum the surfaces 

accumulating such dust with a HEPA 

vacuum device/system. 

We estimate that the cost burden will 

be mostly labor to develop and 

implement the dust plan. Total 

estimated initial cost for a new facility 

to develop a fugitive dust plan is $7,600 

and annual costs to implement the plan 

are estimated to be $13,000 per facility 

per year. We conclude these costs are 

relatively low and will prevent 

significant releases of fugitive dust 

emissions. Furthermore, we have not 

identified any significant non-air 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. These measures are 

therefore considered to be cost effective. 

h. Summary 

In summary, the EPA is proposing 

revised Pb emission limits for grid 

casting and lead reclamation (for all 

facilities), and a revised limit for paste 

mixing (for large facilities only), under 

a new NSPS subpart (KKa) for LAB 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

February 23, 2022. In addition, the EPA 

is proposing the following amendments 

under the new NSPS subpart KKa (for 

lead acid battery facilities that begin 

construction, reconstruction or 

modification after February 23, 2022): 

Performance testing once every 5 years 

to demonstrate compliance; work 

practices to minimize emissions of 

fugitive lead dust; increased inspection 

frequency of fabric filters; bag leak 

detection systems for large facilities; 

electronic reporting of performance test 

results and semiannual compliance 

reports; and proposing that the 

standards will apply at all times 

including periods of SSM. As explained 

above, we are proposing the revised 

limits and work practice standards 

because we conclude that these 

proposed standards are cost effective, 

and we have not identified any 

significant non-air environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. 

Furthermore, we are proposing the 

improved monitoring requirements for 

fabric filters and scrubbers (described 

above) and periodic testing requirement 

of once every 5 years because these 

measures will help ensure continued 

compliance and detect problems early 

on so that damaged fabric filters can be 

quickly inspected and repaired as 

needed. These proposed standards and 

other requirements (for 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart KKa) would apply to lead acid 

battery manufacturing facilities that 

commence construction, reconstruction, 

or modification after February 23, 2022. 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review, and what is the rationale for 

those decisions? 

As described in section III.B of this 

preamble, the technology review for the 

area source NESHAP for lead acid 

battery manufacturing focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

potential developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

have occurred since the NESHAP was 

promulgated in 2007. In conducting the 

technology review, we reviewed various 

information sources regarding the 

emissions from lead acid battery 

manufacturing operations and other 

relevant information such as control 

technologies applied, work practices 

used, processes, and monitoring 

approaches. Through searches of these 

data sources, several developments in 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies were identified, evaluated 

and considered. As discussed below, 

these include developments and 

improvements that could affect the level 

of one or more of the emissions limits 

or result in the addition of work practice 

standards and/or revised compliance 

assurance measures. Based on this 

review and evaluations, the EPA is 

proposing the following amendments to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d): 

• A revised Pb emission limit for grid 

casting operations and lead reclamation 

to reflect developments in technology; 

• A revised Pb emission limit for 

paste mixing operations at large 

facilities to reflect developments in 

technology; 

• Improved monitoring of emission 

points controlled by fabric filters and 

scrubbers; 

• Bag leak detection systems for large 

facilities; 

• Performance testing requirements; 

and 

• Work practices to minimize fugitive 

dust emissions. 

The data, analyses, results, and 

proposed decisions for each of these 

proposed amendments pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d) are presented below. 

a. Revised Lead Emission Limits for 

Grid Casting Operations and Lead 

Reclamation 

The methodology used to analyze the 

use of fabric filters in the grid casting 

and lead reclamation processes for new, 

reconstructed, and modified sources is 

described in section IV.B.a. The data, 

analyses and decisions for each of these 

two processes at existing area source 

facilities is discussed in this section 

below. 

Grid Casting Facility. As discussed in 

section IV.B.a above, the emission limit 

promulgated in the 1982 NSPS was 

based on an impingement scrubber with 

90 percent control efficiency. In the 

2007 NESHAP final rule, the EPA 

adopted that same limit (based on 

impingent scrubbers) as the limit for 

grid casting in the NESHAP. Based on 

our review of facility permits, the 

majority of existing area source facilities 

(at least 29 of the 39 facilities subject to 

the NESHAP) are now using fabric 

filters with at least 99 percent control 

efficiency for their grid casting 

emissions. Some facilities are also using 

secondary control devices such as a wet 

scrubber or HEPA filter in addition to 

the primary fabric filters to achieve 

further emissions control. Furthermore, 

we did not identify any facilities using 

only a wet scrubber. Therefore, we 

conclude that fabric filters are clearly 

feasible and well demonstrated as an 

appropriate control technology for grid 

casting operations. Based on these 

findings, the EPA is proposing a revised 

Pb emission limit in the NESHAP for 

new and existing grid casting facilities 

of 0.04 mg/dscm (0.0000175 gr/dscf) 

based on the use of fabric filters with at 

least 99 percent control efficiency. We 

estimate costs would be minimal to 

none for all existing area source 

facilities to comply with the new grid 

casting emission limit. Regarding new 

sources, as described in more detail in 

section IV.B.a, we conclude that fabric 

filters are a well-demonstrated and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10147 

feasible control technology for grid 

casting and that this technology is cost 

effective for new, reconstructed, and 

modified sources. 

Lead Reclamation Facility. We 

estimate that there are no existing 

facilities currently conducting lead 

reclamation activities as defined in the 

rule. However, there is some uncertainty 

in this conclusion because of the 

following data gaps: We did not have 

access to three facility permits; and 

based on our review of 37 air permits, 

two permits mentioned lead reclamation 

equipment which are controlled by 

fabric filters. However, it is not clear if 

the facilities are actively conducting 

lead reclamation as it is defined in the 

rule. As discussed in more detail in 

section IV.D.c. many facilities send their 

Pb scrap to a secondary lead smelter or 

remelt their on-site scraps and use the 

molten Pb directly in a process instead 

of reforming it into an ingot for later 

use. 

Nevertheless, based on our analysis of 

existing sources (presented above) and 

the analysis for new sources (presented 

in section IV.B.a), the EPA is proposing 

a revised Pb emission limit of 0.45 mg/ 

dscm (0.000197 gr/dscf) for new and 

existing area source facilities, if they 

conduct lead reclamation, based on the 

use of fabric filters with 99 percent 

control efficiency. We estimate no cost 

impacts to existing sources due to this 

proposed revised limit because we did 

not identify any facilities currently 

conducting lead reclamation, and the 

two facilities which mention the 

presence of reclamation equipment in 

their permits already have fabric filters 

as the control technology for those 

units. Regarding new sources, as 

described in section IV.B.a, we conclude 

that it is technically feasible and cost 

effective for new, reconstructed, and 

modified facilities to control Pb 

emissions from lead reclamation with a 

fabric filter. 

b. Revised Pb Emission Limit for Paste 

Mixing Facilities 

The EPA is proposing a revised Pb 

emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm 

(0.0000437 gr/dscf) for paste mixing 

facilities at new and existing large 

facilities. However, the EPA is 

proposing to retain the paste mixing 

facility Pb emission limit of 1 mg/dscm 

(0.000437 gr/dscf) for new and existing 

small facilities. The methodology used 

to analyze the use of secondary filters in 

the paste mixing process for new 

sources is described in Section IV.B.b. 

The data, analyses, and decisions, 

including the cost and cost effectiveness 

for existing facilities, is discussed in 

this section. 

As mentioned in section IV.B.b, we 

identified 16 paste mixing facilities (40 

percent of the total) that currently have 

secondary filters to achieve much higher 

control efficiency on their paste mixing 

operations. Capital costs for an existing 

small facility that currently has a fabric 

filter to retrofit to add a secondary 

HEPA filter on their paste mixing 

process are estimated to be $63,000, and 

for an existing large facility, $149,000. 

Annualized costs are estimated to be 

$45,000 for an existing small facility 

and $91,000 for an existing large 

facility. We estimate five existing 

facilities would need to add these 

controls resulting in total industry 

capital costs of $745,000 and annualized 

costs of $455,000 and achieving 0.5 tpy 

reduction of Pb emissions. 

The cost effectiveness for an existing 

small facility is $1,730,000 per ton of Pb 

reduced and for an existing large facility 

is $910,000 per ton of Pb. Detailed cost 

information for both facility size 

categories is shown in the Technology 

Review Memorandum. 

The results of the cost analyses for 

existing large facilities indicate that the 

estimated cost effectiveness of adding a 

secondary HEPA filter on the paste 

mixing process is within the range of 

what the EPA has considered to be a 

cost-effective level of control for Pb 

emissions, but it is not cost effective for 

existing small facilities. Furthermore, 

we expect that smaller facilities would 

likely have lower annual revenues 

compared to the larger facilities and we 

assume the smaller facilities are more 

likely be owned by small businesses. 

Therefore, we expect that in general the 

small facilities would be more likely to 

experience significant economic 

impacts if they were required to install 

secondary filters on their paste mixing 

operations. For these reasons, we are not 

proposing any changes to the emissions 

limits for paste mixing operations at 

small facilities because of the costs, cost 

effectiveness, and potential for 

significant economic impacts to some 

small businesses. 

c. Review of Other Process Units at Lead 

Acid Battery Manufacturing Facilities 

In addition to grid casting, 

reclamation, and paste mixing, we also 

evaluated potential revisions to the 

emissions limits for the three-process 

operations and lead oxide 

manufacturing but did not identify any 

cost-effective options. Therefore, we are 

not proposing any changes to the 

emissions limits for these processes. 

The data and analyses regarding these 

operations are provided in the 

Technology Review Memorandum 

available in the docket. 

d. Improved Monitoring of Emission 

Points Controlled by Fabric Filters and 

Scrubbers 

The area source NESHAP requires 

that for emission points controlled by a 

fabric filter, semiannual inspections and 

maintenance must be conducted to 

ensure proper performance of the fabric 

filter. In addition, pressure drop or 

visible emission (VE) observations must 

be conducted for the fabric filter daily 

(or weekly if the fabric filter has a 

secondary HEPA filter) to ensure the 

fabric filter is functioning properly. To 

reduce the likelihood of malfunctions 

that result in excess lead emissions, the 

EPA is proposing to increase the 

frequency of fabric filter inspections and 

maintenance operations to monthly for 

units that do not have a secondary filter 

and retain the requirement for semiannual inspections for units that do 

have a secondary filter. 

Due to state and local permitting 

conditions, some facilities already are 

required to perform additional 

inspections to ensure equipment is 

functioning properly. This includes 

performing inspections of the fabric 

filter on a more frequent basis, ranging 

from weekly to quarterly, and includes 

performing inspections of additional 

equipment, such as dust collection 

hoppers and conveyance systems. We 

consider these more stringent inspection 

requirements to be a development in 

operational procedures that would help 

ensure continued compliance by 

identifying and correcting problems 

earlier. 

Through the permit review, we also 

found that several plants have 

requirements to keep replacement fabric 

filters onsite. The area source NESHAP 

does not include requirements to keep 

replacement filters or other materials 

onsite. While not elaborated on in the 

permits, these requirements would 

ensure that when any issue or damage 

is noted with a fabric filter, a timely 

replacement of the filter can be 

performed to ensure the control device 

functions as intended. Such 

requirements also prevent unnecessary 

delays with fabric filter repairs and 

minimize the duration that processes 

would continue to operate with higher 

emissions until a replacement filter can 

be obtained. These requirements would 

also ensure that any shutdown of the 

processes would be minimized as the 

replacement parts would be readily 

available for the repair to be completed. 

The EPA is proposing that inspections 

of emission points with fabric filters 

that are not followed by a secondary 

filter must be conducted monthly 

instead of semi-annually. For units with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10148 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

a secondary filter the EPA proposes to 

retain the requirement for semi-annual 

inspections. We are also proposing to 

require all facilities to have replacement 

filters on hand in case filters are 

damaged, and we are proposing that 

large facilities must also have 

replacement secondary filters on hand 

for the paste mixing process control 

devices. We estimate that capital costs 

for replacement primary filters are less 

than $100 per filter and replacement 

secondary filters are $350 per filter 

depending on the specifications of the 

equipment. There are no new additional 

annual costs (compared to the current 

NESHAP) because in the event a filter 

needed to be replaced, facilities would 

incur those costs regardless of this 

requirement. Even though there is an 

upfront cost to keep these replacement 

filters on hand, we estimate there would 

be no change in net costs over time 

associated with this requirement 

because the replacement filters would 

eventually be needed regardless of 

whether they are already onsite. We 

estimate costs for the additional 

inspections will vary depending on the 

number of emission sources controlled 

with fabric filters that do not have 

secondary filters. Based on our 

estimation, each additional inspection 

would cost approximately $200. 

As discussed in section IV.B.d, 

standard monitoring of scrubbing 

systems include measuring liquid flow 

rate across the scrubbing system. We 

propose to add a requirement to 

measure and record the liquid flow rate 

across each scrubbing system (that is not 

followed by a fabric filter) at least once 

every 15 minutes in the NESHAP in 

addition to monitoring pressure drop 

across each scrubbing system. Based on 

our review, we only identified three 

facilities that have a scrubber system 

that is not followed by a fabric filter. 

Therefore, we estimate that this 

requirement will only impact three 

existing facilities. Based on our review 

of the operating permits for these 

facilities, at least one is already 

monitoring liquid flow rate across 

scrubbing systems every 15 minutes. For 

the other two facilities, we expect that 

their scrubbing systems already include 

the capability to measure liquid flow 

rate since it is a standard requirement to 

ensure a scrubbing system is operating 

properly; therefore, we estimate these 

facilities will not have any capital costs 

to comply with this requirement but 

may have small unquantified increase in 

annual costs due to recordkeeping 

requirements. 

e. Bag Leak Detection Systems for Large 

Facilities 

As discussed in section IV.B.e, the 

EPA found several lead acid battery 

facilities that have bag leak detection 

systems. We consider the use of bag leak 

detection systems a development in 

operational procedures that will assure 

compliance with the area source 

NESHAP by identifying and correcting 

fabric filter failures earlier than would 

be indicated by the daily pressure drop 

monitoring or daily VE monitoring. The 

EPA has promulgated other recent 

rulemakings that have included this 

requirement for units that do not have 

a secondary filter such the 2012 

Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP 

amendments (77 FR 3, 556, January 5, 

2012). 

The EPA is proposing that new and 

existing large facilities that do not have 

secondary filters must install and 

operate bag leak detection systems to 

ensure continuous compliance with the 

NESHAP and detect problems early. 

Capital costs are estimated to be $68,000 

per baghouse and annual costs are 

estimated to be $14,000 per baghouse. 

We estimate that there are 

approximately 13 large facilities in the 

source category, and that 8 of these large 

facilities will need to add bag leak 

detection systems. The other 5 facilities 

either already have a bag leak detection 

system or already have secondary HEPA 

filters. Capital costs for the 13 facilities 

are estimated to be in the range of $0 

(for facilities that already have bag leak 

detection systems or secondary filters) 

to $816,000 per facility (for a facility 

that has 12 fabric filters and that 

currently has no bag leak detection 

systems or secondary filters). The 

estimated annual costs range from $0 to 

$164,000 per facility. Total capital costs 

for all eight facilities are estimated to be 

$2.5 million and total annual costs for 

all eight facilities are estimated to be 

$506,000. However, we are not 

proposing a requirement for small 

facilities because it would impose 

significant economic impacts on some 

small businesses. 

f. Performance Testing 

Currently, the NESHAP requires 

facilities to conduct an initial 

compliance test. As discussed in section 

IV.B.f, the EPA has proposed and 

promulgated periodic performance 

testing in other recent rulemakings. In 

this action, we are proposing a 

requirement to conduct compliance 

testing at least once every 5 years for all 

existing and new area sources. To 

reduce some of the cost burden, the EPA 

is proposing to allow facilities that have 

two or more processes and stacks that 

are very similar, and have the same type 

of control devices, to test just one stack 

as representative of the others as 

approved by the delegated authority. We 

are proposing that the NESHAP will 

include the same testing requirements 

that EPA is proposing under the new 

NSPS subpart KKa, as discussed in 

section IV.B.f. 

Costs for existing facilities are 

estimated to range from $23,000 to 

$181,000 per facility every 5 years, 

depending on the total number of stacks 

to be tested. 

g. Work Practices To Minimize Fugitive 

Dust Emissions 

The EPA is proposing that all 

facilities must develop and implement a 

fugitive dust plan which includes at a 

minimum the work practices discussed 

in section IV.B.g. We estimate that most 

facilities are already doing these work 

practices, and that the cost burden will 

be mostly labor to develop and 

implement the dust plan. Total 

estimated costs range from $0 (for 

facilities that already have a fugitive 

dust plan and are implementing it) to 

$20,000 per facility per year. 

D. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa 

In addition to the proposed actions 

described above, we are proposing 

additional revisions to the NSPS KK as 

part of the new proposed subpart KKa. 

We are proposing that emission limits 

and opacity limits will apply at all 

times, including during startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) in 

order to ensure that the limits are 

consistent with the decision in Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). We also are proposing to require 

electronic reporting for performance 

tests and semiannual excess emissions 

and continuous monitoring reports, and 

a clarification to the definition of ‘‘lead 

reclamation.’’ Our analyses and 

proposed changes related to these issues 

are discussed below. 

a. Proposal of NSPS Subpart KKa 

Without Startup, Shutdown, 

Malfunction Exemptions 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) vacated portions of two 

provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 

112 regulations governing the emissions 

of HAP during periods of SSM. 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10149 

6https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 

7See EPA Form 5900–577 Lead_Acid_Battery_

Manufacturing_Semiannual_Excess_Emissions_

CMS_Performance_Report_Template.xlsx available 

at Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0619. 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we 

are proposing standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. The NSPS general 

provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(c) currently 

exclude opacity requirements during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction and the provision in 40 

CFR 60.8(c) contains an exemption from 

non-opacity standards. We are 

proposing in subpart KKa specific 

requirements at section 60.372a(a) that 

override the general provisions for SSM. 

We are proposing that all standards in 

subpart KKa apply at all times, 

including the opacity limits in 40 CFR 

part 60. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the general provisions we are proposing 

to override are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained below, has not 

proposed alternate standards for those 

periods. We discussed this issue with 

industry representatives and asked them 

if they expect any problems with the 

removal of the SSM exemptions. The 

lead acid battery manufacturing 

industry did not identify (and there are 

no data indicating) any specific 

problems with removing the SSM 

provisions. The main control devices 

used in this industry are fabric filters. 

We expect that these control devices are 

effective in controlling emissions during 

startup and shutdown events. With 

regard to malfunctions, these events are 

described in the following paragraph. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). 

The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as 

not requiring emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA consider malfunctions when 

determining what standards of 

performance reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

‘‘the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards, nothing 

in section 111 requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. The EPA is not required to 

treat a malfunction in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance 

that occurs during routine operations of 

a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or 

usual manner’’ and no statutory 

language compels EPA to consider such 

events in setting section 111 standards 

of performance. The EPA’s approach to 

malfunctions in the analogous 

circumstances (setting ‘‘achievable’’ 

standards under section 112) has been 

upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit 

in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 

579, 606–610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 

b. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of lead acid battery 

manufacturing plants subject to the 

NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa 

submit electronic copies of required 

performance test reports and the 

semiannual excess emissions and 

continuous monitoring system 

performance and summary reports, 

through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). A description of the electronic 

data submission process is provided in 

the memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, available in the docket for this 

action. The proposed rule requires that 

performance test results collected using 

test methods that are supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

as listed on the ERT website 6 at the time 

of the test be submitted in the format 

generated through the use of the ERT or 

an electronic file consistent with the 

xml schema on the ERT website, and 

other performance test results be 

submitted in portable document format 

(PDF) using the attachment module of 

the ERT. For the semiannual excess 

emissions and continuous monitoring 

system performance and summary 

reports, the proposed rule requires that 

owners and operators use the 

appropriate spreadsheet template to 

submit information to CEDRI. A draft 

version of the proposed template(s) for 

these reports is included in the docket 

for this action.7 The EPA specifically 

requests comment on the content, 

layout, and overall design of the 

template(s). 

Additionally, the EPA has identified 

two specific circumstances in which 

electronic reporting extensions may be 

provided. These circumstances are (1) 

Outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI 

which preclude an owner or operator 

from accessing the system and 

submitting required reports and (2) force 

majeure events, which are defined as 

events that will be or have been caused 

by circumstances beyond the control of 

the affected facility, its contractors, or 

any entity controlled by the affected 

facility that prevent an owner or 

operator from complying with the 

requirement to submit a report 

electronically. Examples of force 

majeure events are acts of nature, acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazards beyond the control of 

the facility. The EPA is providing these 

potential extensions to protect owners 

and operators from noncompliance in 

cases where they cannot successfully 

submit a report by the reporting 

deadline for reasons outside of their 

control. In both circumstances, the 

decision to accept the claim of needing 

additional time to report is within the 

discretion of the Administrator, and 

reporting should occur as soon as 

possible. 

The electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

will increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors, and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 

public. Moreover, electronic reporting is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10150 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 

9E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA 

Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013- 

09-30.pdf. 

10 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century 

Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 

2012. Available at: https://

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ 

omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. 

11U.S. EPA, Court Vacatur of Exemption from 

Emission Standards During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction. (86 FR 13819, March 

11, 2021). 

consistent with the EPA’s plan 8 to 

implement Executive Order 13563 and 

is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 9 developed in response to 

the White House’s Digital Government 

Strategy.10 For more information on the 

benefits of electronic reporting, see the 

memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, referenced earlier in this section. 

c. Lead Reclamation Definition 

Under the NSPS, subpart KK, a lead 

reclamation facility is a facility (that is 

not an affected secondary lead smelting 

furnace under 40 CFR 60, subpart L) 

that remelts Pb scrap and casts it into 

ingots for use in the battery 

manufacturing process. Information 

available to the EPA indicates that no 

facilities currently remelt Pb and cast it 

into ingots for use in the battery 

manufacturing processes. However, to 

ensure that emissions are controlled 

from any Pb that is recycled or reused, 

without being remelted and cast into 

ingots, the EPA is revising the definition 

of lead reclamation facility to clarify 

that the lead reclamation facility does 

not include recycling of any type of 

finished battery or recycling leadbearing scrap that is obtained from noncategory sources or from any offsite 

operation. Likewise, we are also 

proposing to clarify that recycling of any 

type of finished battery or recycling 

lead-bearing scrap that is obtained from 

non-category sources or from any offsite 

operations are prohibited at the lead 

acid battery facility. 

In addition, the proposed revised 

definition clarifies that lead reclamation 

facilities also do not include the 

remelting of Pb metal scrap (such as 

unused grids or scraps from creating 

grids) from on-site lead acid battery 

manufacturing processes and that any 

such remelting is considered part of the 

process where the Pb is remelted and 

used (i.e., grid casting). 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

In addition to the proposed actions 

described above, we are proposing 

additional revisions to the NESHAP. We 

are proposing revisions to the startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 

provisions of the NESHAP in order to 

ensure that they are consistent with the 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 

3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in which the 

court vacated two provisions that 

exempted sources from the requirement 

to comply with otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of SSM. We also are 

proposing various other changes 

including: To require electronic 

reporting for performance tests and 

semiannual excess emissions and 

continuous monitoring reports; a 

clarification to the definition of lead 

reclamation; and a revision to the 

applicability provisions to require that 

facilities with some of the battery 

production processes (e.g., grid casting 

or lead oxide production) are subject to 

the standards in the NESHAP regardless 

of whether or not the facility produces 

the end product (i.e., batteries). Our 

analyses and proposed changes related 

to these issues are discussed below. 

a. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

(SSM) Provisions 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

court vacated portions of two provisions 

in the EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations governing the emissions of 

HAP during periods of SSM. 

Specifically, the court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

In March 2021, the EPA issued a 

rule 11 that revised the General 

Provisions to remove the SSM 

exemptions at 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 

(h)(1). In this action, we are proposing 

to eliminate references to these SSM 

exemptions in this rule and to remove 

other additional SSM exemptions in the 

rule, including any reference to 

requirements included in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart A (General Provisions). 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

standards that we are proposing in this 

rule apply at all times. We are also 

proposing several revisions to Table 1 to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, as is 

explained in more detail below. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the provisions we are proposing to 

eliminate are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained in section 

IV.D.1.a above, has not proposed 

alternate standards for those periods. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead, they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of an emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2, 

Definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112 

standards, and this reading has been 

upheld as reasonable by the court. See 

U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 

606–610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA 

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 CAA 

section 112 that directs the Agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing sources when setting 

emission standards. The court has 

recognized that the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. The EPA is not required to 

treat a malfunction in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance 

that occurs during routine operations of 

a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or 

usual manner’’ and no statutory 

language compels the EPA to consider 

such events in setting CAA section 112 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10151 

standards. Similarly, although standards 

for area sources are not required to be 

set based on ‘‘best performers,’’ EPA is 

not required to consider malfunctions in 

determining what is ‘‘generally 

available.’’ 

In the March 2021 rule, the EPA 

removed the SSM exemptions at 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) to effectuate the 

2008 court decision vacating these 

provisions. In this action, we are 

changing the applicability of these two 

general provisions from a ‘‘yes’’ to ‘‘no’’ 

and adding rule-specific language to 

ensure the rule applies as all times. We 

are proposing to revise the General 

Provisions table (Table 3) entry for the 

citation to 40 CFR 63.6(a)–(d), (e)(1), (f)– 

(j) by changing the citation to reference 

only 40 CFR 63.6(a)–(d). We are also 

proposing to add a row for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) and including a ‘‘no’’ for 

this entry in column 3, ‘‘Applies to 

Subpart PPPPPP?’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

describes the general duty to minimize 

emissions. Some of the language in that 

section is no longer necessary or 

appropriate in light of the elimination of 

the SSM exemption. We are proposing 

instead to add general duty regulatory 

text at 40 CFR 63.11423(a)(3) that 

reflects the general duty to minimize 

emissions while eliminating the 

reference to periods covered by an SSM 

exemption. The current language in 40 

CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the 

general duty entails during periods of 

SSM. With the elimination of the SSM 

exemption, there is no need to 

differentiate between normal operations, 

startup and shutdown, and malfunction 

events in describing the general duty. 

Therefore, the language the EPA is 

proposing for 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

PPPPPP does not include that language 

from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). 

We are also proposing to add a row 

to the General Provisions table (Table 3) 

for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a 

‘‘no’’ for this entry in column 3. Section 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that 

are not necessary with the elimination 

of the SSM exemption or are redundant 

with the general duty requirement being 

added at 40 CFR 63.11423(a)(3). 

We are also proposing to add a row 

to the General Provisions table (Table 3) 

for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and including 

a ‘‘yes’’ for this entry in column 3. 

While the provision at 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) was revised in March 2021, 

this action proposes to add a row to the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) for 40 

CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ‘‘no’’ for 

this entry in column 3. The language of 

40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) no longer exempts 

sources from non-opacity standards 

during periods of SSM, however, for 

clarity this action will no longer 

reference the General Provisions for this 

provision. As discussed above, the court 

in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions 

previously contained in this provision 

and held that the CAA requires that 

some section 112 standard apply 

continuously. Consistent with Sierra 

Club, the EPA is clarifying that 

standards in this rule will apply at all 

times. We are also proposing to add 

rows to Table 3 for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(2)– 

(3) and 63.6(g) and including a ‘‘yes’’ for 

these entries in column 3. 

Similarly, we are proposing to add a 

row to the General Provisions table 

(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ for this entry in 

column 3. The language of 40 CFR 

63.6(h)(1) no longer exempts sources 

from opacity standards during periods 

of SSM, however, for clarity this action 

will no longer reference the General 

Provisions for this provision. As 

discussed above, the court in Sierra 

Club vacated the exemptions previously 

contained in this provision and held 

that the CAA requires that some section 

112 standard apply continuously. 

Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 

proposing to revise standards in this 

rule to apply at all times. We are also 

proposing to add a row to Table 3 for 

40 CFR 63.6(h)(2)–(9), (i) and (j) and 

including a ‘‘yes’’ for this entry in 

column 3. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.7 by changing the citation 

to 40 CFR 63.7(a)–(d), (e)(2) and (3) and 

(f)–(j). We are also proposing to add a 

row to the table for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) 

and including a ‘‘no’’ for this entry in 

column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 

performance testing requirements. The 

EPA is instead proposing to add a 

performance testing requirement at 40 

CFR 63.11423(c)(7). The performance 

testing requirements we are proposing 

to add differ from the General 

Provisions performance testing 

provisions in several respects. The 

regulatory text does not include the 

language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 

restated the SSM exemption and 

language that precluded startup and 

shutdown periods from being 

considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. As in 

40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests 

conducted under this subpart should 

not be conducted during malfunctions 

because conditions during malfunctions 

are often not representative of normal 

operating conditions. The EPA is 

proposing to add language that requires 

the owner or operator to record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner 

or operator make available to the 

Administrator such records ‘‘as may be 

necessary to determine the condition of 

the performance test’’ available to the 

Administrator upon request but does 

not specifically require the information 

to be recorded. The regulatory text the 

EPA is proposing to add to this 

provision builds on that requirement 

and makes explicit the requirement to 

record the information. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.8 by changing the citation 

to 40 CFR 63.8(a), (b), (c)(1)(ii), (d)(1) 

and (2), (e)–(g). We are also proposing 

to add rows to the table for 40 CFR 

63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including a 

‘‘no’’ for these entries in column 3. The 

cross-references to the general duty and 

SSM plan requirements in those 

subparagraphs are not necessary in light 

of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 

that require good air pollution control 

practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set 

out the requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

We are proposing to add a row to the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) for 40 

CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ‘‘no’’ for 

this entry in column 3. The final 

sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to 

the General Provisions’ SSM plan 

requirement which is no longer 

applicable. The EPA is proposing to add 

to the rule at 40 CFR 63.11423(e)(3) text 

that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) 

except that the final sentence is 

replaced with the following sentence: 

‘‘The program of corrective action 

should be included in the plan required 

under § 63.8(d)(2).’’ 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10 by changing the 

citation to 40 CFR 63.10(a), (b)(1), 

(b)(2)(iii), (vi–ix), (b)(3), (c)(1)–(14), 

(d)(1)–(4), (e), (f). We are also proposing 

to add a row to the table for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ‘‘no’’ for 

this entry in column 3. Section 

63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during 

startup and shutdown. These recording 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the EPA is proposing that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations will apply to 

startup and shutdown. In the absence of 

special provisions applicable to startup 

and shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional recordkeeping for 

startup and shutdown periods. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10152 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

We are proposing to add a row to the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) for 40 

CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ‘‘no’’ 

for this entry in column 3. Section 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during a 

malfunction. The EPA is proposing to 

add such requirements to 40 CFR 

63.11424(a)(6). The regulatory text we 

are proposing to add differs from the 

General Provisions it is replacing in that 

the General Provisions requires the 

creation and retention of a record of the 

occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of process, air pollution 

control, and monitoring equipment. The 

EPA is proposing that this requirement 

apply to any failure to meet an 

applicable standard and is requiring that 

the source record the date, time, and 

duration of the failure rather than the 

‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also 

proposing to add to 40 CFR 

63.11424(a)(7)(ii) and (iii) a requirement 

that sources keep records that include a 

list of the affected source or equipment 

and actions taken to minimize 

emissions, an estimate of the quantity of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

the standard for which the source failed 

to meet the standard, and a description 

of the method used to estimate the 

emissions. Examples of such methods 

would include product-loss 

calculations, mass balance calculations, 

measurements when available, or 

engineering judgment based on known 

process parameters. The EPA is 

proposing to require that sources keep 

records of this information to ensure 

that there is adequate information to 

allow the EPA to determine the severity 

of any failure to meet a standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions when the source 

has failed to meet an applicable 

standard. 

We are proposing to add a row to the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) for 40 

CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and 

including a ‘‘no’’ for this entry in 

column 3. When applicable, these 

provisions require sources to record 

actions taken during SSM events when 

actions were inconsistent with their 

SSM plan or to show that actions taken 

were consistent with their SSM plan. 

These requirements are no longer 

appropriate because SSM plans will no 

longer be required. The requirement 

previously applicable under 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to 

minimize emissions and record 

corrective actions is now applicable by 

reference to 40 CFR 63.11424(a)(7). 

We are proposing to add a row to the 

General Provisions table (Table 3) for 40 

CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ‘‘no’’ 

for this entry in column 3. The EPA is 

proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no 

longer apply. When applicable, the 

provision allows an owner or operator 

to use the affected source’s startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan or 

records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements of the startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction plan, specified in 40 

CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 

through (12). The EPA is proposing to 

eliminate this requirement because SSM 

plans would no longer be required, and 

therefore 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 

serves any useful purpose for affected 

units. 

b. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of lead acid battery 

manufacturing facilities subject to the 

area source NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart PPPPPP submit electronic 

copies of required performance test 

reports and semiannual excess 

emissions and continuous monitoring 

system performance and summary 

reports through the same procedures 

described above in section IV.D.b for the 

new NSPS subpart KKa. 

c. Lead Reclamation Definition 

Clarification 

The NESHAP references 40 CFR part 

60, subpart KK for the definition of a 

lead reclamation facility. The NSPS KK 

defines lead reclamation as a facility 

(that is not an affected secondary lead 

smelting furnace under 40 CFR 60, 

subpart L) that remelts Pb scrap and 

casts it into ingots for use in the battery 

manufacturing process. As discussed in 

Section IV.D.c, information available to 

the EPA indicates that no facilities 

currently remelt Pb and cast it into 

ingots for use in the battery 

manufacturing processes. However, to 

ensure that emissions are controlled 

from any Pb that is recycled or reused, 

without being remelted and cast into 

ingots, the EPA is revising the definition 

of lead reclamation facility to clarify 

that the lead reclamation facility does 

not include recycling of any type of 

finished battery or recycling leadbearing scrap that is obtained from noncategory sources or from any offsite 

operation. We are also proposing to 

clarify that recycling of any type of 

finished battery or recycling leadbearing scrap that is obtained from noncategory sources or from any offsite 

operation are prohibited at the lead acid 

battery facility. In addition, the 

proposed revised definition clarifies 

that lead reclamation facilities also do 

not include the remelting of Pb metal 

scrap (such as unused grids or scraps 

from creating grids) from on-site lead 

acid battery manufacturing processes 

and that any such remelting is 

considered part of the process where the 

Pb is remelted and used (i.e., grid 

casting). 

d. Expanded Facility Applicability 

The original definition of the lead 

acid battery manufacturing source 

category stated that lead acid battery 

manufacturing facilities include any 

facility engaged in producing lead acid 

batteries. It also explained that the 

category includes, but is not limited to, 

the following manufacturing steps: Lead 

oxide production, grid casting, paste 

mixing, and three-process operation 

(plate stacking, burning, and assembly). 

The EPA is aware of some facilities that 

conduct one or more of the lead acid 

battery manufacturing processes but do 

not produce the final product of a 

battery, and thus are not considered to 

be in the lead acid battery source 

category, and those processes are not 

subject to the lead acid battery 

NESHAP. To ensure these processes 

utilizing Pb are regulated to the same 

extent as those that are located at 

facilities where the final battery 

products are produced, the EPA is 

proposing to revise the applicability 

provisions in the NESHAP such that 

facilities that process Pb to manufacture 

battery parts (such as battery grids) or 

input material (such as lead oxide) will 

be subject to the NESHAP regardless of 

whether or not they produce the end 

product (i.e., lead acid batteries). The 

source category definition is broad 

enough that the EPA determined it can 

encompass these facilities. Available 

permit information indicates that lead 

acid battery manufacturing processes 

being conducted at facilities other than 

where the final batteries are made 

indicates that Pb emissions from the 

processes are controlled and that those 

facilities can meet the emissions limits 

in the NESHAP. However, these 

facilities will also need to meet the 

compliance assurance measures of the 

proposed NESHAP, including improved 

monitoring of emission points with 

fabric filters, performance testing, 

reporting, and recordkeeping, as well as 

comply with the proposed fugitive dust 

mitigation plan requirements. Therefore, 

we expect there will be some cost 

impacts for these facilities to comply 

with these compliance assurance 

measures and work practices. We 

estimate the costs for compliance testing 

will be $23,000 to $34,000 per facility 

once every 5 years; and annual costs for 

fugitive dust work practices of $0 to 

$13,000 per facility. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10153 

E. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 

a. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa 

The final action for the NSPS is not 

expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date 

of the final rule will be the 

promulgation date as specified in CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B)). Affected sources 

that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

February 23, 2022, must comply with all 

requirements of subpart KKa no later 

than the effective date of the final rule 

or upon startup, whichever is later. 

b. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

The final action for the NESHAP is 

not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the 

effective date of the final rule will be the 

promulgation date as specified in CAA 

section 112(d)(10). Affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after February 23, 2022, 

must comply with all requirements of 

subpart PPPPPP, including the final 

amendments, no later than the effective 

date of the final rule or upon startup, 

whichever is later. Affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before February 23, 

2022, must comply with certain 

amendments, as specified below, no 

later than 180 days after the effective 

date of the final rule and other 

amendments, as specified below, no 

later than 3 years after the effective date 

of the rule, or upon startup, whichever 

is later. All affected facilities would 

have to continue to meet the current 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

PPPPPP, until the applicable 

compliance date of the amended 

standards. 

For the following proposed revisions, 

for existing facilities we are proposing a 

compliance date of no later than 180 

days after the effective date of the final 

rule: Clarifications to the definition of 

lead reclamation; requirements for 

electronic reporting of performance test 

results and semiannual excess 

emissions and continuous monitoring 

system performance and summary 

reports; removal of the SSM 

exemptions; revisions to the 

applicability provisions to include 

battery production processes at facilities 

that do not produce the final end 

product (i.e., batteries); and increased 

baghouse inspection frequency. Data 

available to the EPA indicates that 

facilities are not performing lead 

reclamation activities, and therefore the 

proposed clarification to the definition 

of lead reclamation facility will not 

impact any operating facilities. 

Therefore, we propose that no 

additional time is required for facilities 

to comply with the revised definition of 

lead reclamation. Regarding electronic 

reporting, our experience with similar 

industries that are required to convert 

reporting mechanisms to install 

necessary hardware and software, 

become familiar with the process of 

submitting performance test results 

electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, 

test these new electronic submission 

capabilities, and reliably employ 

electronic reporting shows that a time 

period of a minimum of 90 days, and, 

more typically, 180 days, is generally 

necessary to accomplish these revisions. 

For the proposed revised SSM revisions, 

since SSM plans have not been required 

to be developed or followed, we do not 

believe that any additional time beyond 

the 180 days is needed for compliance 

with the proposed removal of the SSM 

exemption. For the revisions to the 

applicability provisions to include 

battery production processes at facilities 

that do not produce the final end 

product of batteries, available 

information indicates that these 

facilities can meet the emission limits 

with their current controls and 

compliance assurance measures 

required by the NESHAP. While these 

facilities will be newly required to 

perform the recordkeeping and 

reporting required by the rule, the EPA 

is proposing that 180 days is sufficient 

time to review the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, develop 

systems, and perform training for 

gathering, submitting, and maintaining 

the required information. Similarly, the 

EPA has determined that facilities 

would not need additional time to meet 

the proposed requirement to perform 

baghouse inspections more frequently. 

These facilities already perform the 

inspections and are familiar with the 

inspection requirements, and they will 

simply need to perform the inspections 

more often (monthly rather than semiannually). 

For the following proposed revisions, 

we are proposing a compliance date of 

3 years after the publication date of the 

final rule: Requirements to develop and 

follow a fugitive dust mitigation plan 

and requirements that performance 

testing be conducted at least once every 

5 years. For fugitive dust mitigation, we 

are proposing to require facilities to 

develop a mitigation plan, submit it for 

approval to their air permitting 

authority, and follow the outlined 

procedures within 3 years of publication 

of the final rule. The EPA anticipates it 

would take approximately six months to 

develop a sound plan and another six 

months for the relevant permitting 

authority to review and approve the 

plan, with the potential for several 

revisions to the plan being required. The 

implementation phase will involve 

training and may involve specialized 

equipment or building and landscape 

changes (e.g., road paving) to 

accomplish the plan elements. The EPA 

anticipates this phase could take 1 to 2 

years, depending on the approved plan 

elements. Therefore, the proposed 

compliance date for compliance with 

the fugitive dust mitigation plan is 3 

years. For the revised emissions limits 

for existing paste mixing at large 

facilities and revised numeric limits for 

grid casting and lead reclamation 

processes, we are proposing a 

compliance date of no later than 3 years 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

Facilities must also demonstrate 

compliance with the revised numeric 

emissions limits for existing paste 

mixing, grid casting, and lead 

reclamation processes within this 3-year 

period. For the repeat performance tests, 

the requirement to test each required 

emissions outlet (i.e., stack) will involve 

testing many stacks at each facility, as 

the average facility has 8 stacks, with an 

industry-wide range of 1 to 33 stacks. To 

coordinate the testing and to provide 

flexibility to the industry to have stack 

testing performed over time, rather than 

all at once, which will also help ensure 

the appropriate testing vendors are 

available to the facilities in the source 

category, we are proposing a compliance 

date for the initial test of 3 years. For 

large facilities with fabric filters as a 

control device without a secondary 

filter, a bag leak detection system is 

required no later than 3 years after the 

effective date of the final rule. 

We solicit comment on the proposed 

compliance periods, and we specifically 

request submission of information from 

sources in this source category regarding 

specific actions that would need to be 

undertaken to comply with the 

proposed amended requirements and 

the time needed to make the 

adjustments for compliance with any of 

the revised requirements. We note that 

information provided may result in 

changes to the proposed compliance 

dates. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa 

We are not expecting any new 

facilities to be built in the foreseeable 

future, but if any new facilities are built 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10154 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the proposed requirements in the new 

NSPS subpart KKa, would achieve an 

estimated 0.08 tpy reduction of 

allowable lead emissions for a small 

facility and an estimated 0.32 tpy 

reduction of allowable lead emissions 

for a large facility compared to that of 

the current NSPS subpart KK. 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

The proposed revised Pb emission 

standard for paste mixing operations at 

large lead acid battery sources in this 

action would achieve an estimated 0.5 

tpy reduction of Pb emissions. In 

addition, the Agency is also proposing 

work practices to minimize fugitive lead 

dust emissions and expects that these 

will achieve some unquantified Pb 

reductions. We are also proposing 

several compliance assurance 

requirements which will ensure 

compliance with the NESHAP and help 

prevent noncompliant emissions of Pb. 

Furthermore, the Agency is proposing 

revised Pb emission standards for grid 

casting and lead reclamation facilities. 

The EPA does not expect to achieve 

reductions in actual emissions with 

these two new standards; however, the 

new standards will reduce the allowable 

emissions from those sources and 

ensure that the emissions remain 

controlled and minimized moving 

forward. As described above, we 

estimate that all facilities in the source 

category are already meeting the revised 

emissions limits. The proposed 

amendments will also include removal 

of the SSM exemptions. We were unable 

to quantify the emissions that occur 

during periods of SSM or the specific 

emissions reductions that would occur 

as a result of this action. However, 

eliminating the SSM exemption has the 

potential to reduce emissions by 

requiring facilities to meet the 

applicable standard during SSM 

periods. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa 

The costs for a new, reconstructed, 

and modified facility to comply with the 

proposed regulatory requirements 

discussed above are described in detail 

in section IV.B and are summarized 

below. As mentioned previously in this 

preamble we do not expect any brandnew facilities in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, the actual costs for new 

sources are expected to be zero since we 

do not expect any such sources. 

However, we do expect that some 

existing facilities could undergo 

modifications or reconstruction. 

Revised Emission Limit for Grid 

Casting: Incremental capital costs for a 

small new, reconstructed, and modified 

source to install and operate a fabric 

filter (BSER) compared to an 

impingement scrubber (baseline) on grid 

casting operations are $53,000, with 

incremental annual costs estimated to 

be $23,600. Incremental capital costs for 

a large new, reconstructed, and 

modified baseline facility to install and 

operate fabric filters (BSER) compared 

to impingement scrubbers (baseline) on 

grid casting operations are estimated to 

be $86,000 with incremental annual 

costs estimated to be $40,000. 

Revised Emission Limit for Lead 

Reclamation: Incremental capital costs 

are estimated to be $17,000 for small 

and large new, reconstructed, and 

modified sources to install fabric filters 

(BSER) compared to impingement 

scrubbers (baseline) on lead reclamation 

operations. Incremental annual costs for 

a small baseline facility to install fabric 

filters (BSER) compared to impingement 

scrubbers (baseline) are estimated to be 

$8,500. Incremental annual costs are 

estimated to be $13,000 for a large 

baseline and model facility. 

Revised Emission Limit for Paste 

Mixing Operations: Capital Costs for a 

new large facility to include secondary 

filters in their facility design are 

$135,000. Annual costs are estimated to 

be $88,800 for a large facility. 

Bag Leak Detection Requirements: For 

a new large facility to install and 

operate bag leak detection systems, 

capital costs would be approximately 

$802,000 per facility and annual costs 

would be approximately $161,000 per 

facility. 

Performance Testing Requirements: 

We estimate that performance testing for 

lead costs about $23,000 to test one 

stack and an additional $5,500 to test 

each additional stack during the same 

testing event. 

Work Practices to Minimize Fugitive 

Lead Dust: Estimated initial costs for 

new facilities to develop a fugitive dust 

plan to minimize fugitive lead dust 

emissions is $7,600 and annual costs to 

implement to plan are approximately 

$13,000 per facility per year. 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

The estimated costs for a theoretical 

new source to comply with the NESHAP 

are the same as the costs described 

above (in section V.B.1) under the NSPS 

KKa. The costs for compliance testing 

for existing sources are estimated to be 

$0 to $181,000 per facility once every 5 

years depending on number of stacks 

(equates to an average annual cost of 

about $0 to $36,000 per facility). Total 

costs for testing for the entire industry 

are estimated to be $1.3 million every 5 

years (which equates to an average 

annual cost of $260,000 per year for the 

entire industry). Table 1 below shows 

the estimated costs and number of 

facilities affected for all other proposed 

changes. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OTHER THAN COMPLIANCE TESTING

Proposed requirement 

Total capital 

costs for the 

industry 

Total annual 

costs for the 

industry 

Number of 

facilities 

impacted 

Capital costs 

per facility 

Annual costs 

per facility 

Work Practices ..................................................... a $350,000 $381,000 b 45 $7,600 ................... $0 to $12,600. 

Fabric Filter Inspections ....................................... 0 72,000 21 $0 .......................... $0 to $10,500. 

Bag Leak Detection System Requirements ......... 2,700,000 544,000 10 $0 to $814,000 ...... $0 to $164,000. 

Revised Limit for Paste Mixing ............................. 750,000 345,000 5 $150,000 ............... $69,000. 

Total for all proposed requirements other 

than testing.

3,800,000 1,340,000 b 45 $0 to $996,000 ...... $0 to $294,000. 

aThese are initial costs to create a fugitive dust plan. Total estimated costs to industry would be $350,000, or approximately $7,600 per facility. 

bThis ‘‘45’’ includes 39 LAB NESHAP Manufacturing facilities and six facilities affected by the proposed applicability clarification described 

above. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10155 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

The EPA conducted economic impact 

analyses for this proposal, as detailed in 

the memorandum, Economic Impact 

and Small Business Analysis for the 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS 

Review and NESHAP Area Source 

Technology Review, which is available 

in the docket for this action. The 

economic impacts of the proposal are 

calculated as the percentage of total 

annualized costs incurred by affected 

ultimate parent owners to their 

revenues. This ratio provides a measure 

of the direct economic impact to 

ultimate parent owners of facilities 

while presuming no impact on 

consumers. We estimate that none of the 

ultimate parent owners affected by this 

proposal will incur total annualized 

costs of 0.5 percent or greater of their 

revenues. Thus, these economic impacts 

are low for affected companies and the 

industries impacted by this proposal, 

and there will not be substantial 

impacts on the markets for affected 

products. The costs of the proposal are 

not expected to result in a significant 

market impact, regardless of whether 

they are passed on to the purchaser or 

absorbed by the firms. 

D. What are the benefits? 

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa 

The new standards for grid casting, 

lead reclamation and paste mixing will 

reduce the allowable emissions from the 

new, reconstructed, and modified 

sources and ensure that the emissions 

remain controlled and minimized 

moving forward. 

2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

PPPPPP 

As described above, the proposed 

amendments would result in some 

reductions in emissions of Pb. The 

proposed amendments also revise the 

standards such that they apply at all 

times, which includes SSM periods. We 

are also proposing several compliance 

assurance requirements which will 

ensure compliance with the NESHAP 

and help prevent noncompliant 

emissions of Pb. Furthermore, the 

proposed requirements to submit 

reports and test results electronically 

will improve monitoring, compliance, 

and implementation of the rule. 

Reducing emissions of lead dust is 

expected to reduce potential exposures 

to nearby communities. A quantitative 

analysis would be technically 

complicated, resource intensive and 

infeasible to perform in the time 

available. For these reasons, we did not 

perform a quantitative analysis. Rather, 

we qualitatively characterize the health 

impacts of lead to convey an 

understanding of potential benefits. 

This is presented in Economic Impact 

and Small Business Analysis for the 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS 

Review and NESHAP Area Source 

Technology Review, which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

E. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

Executive Order 12898 and EPA 

policy direct the EPA, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, 

to make environmental justice part of its 

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 (people of color) and lowincome populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). Additionally, 

Executive Order 13985 was signed to 

advance racial equity and support 

underserved communities through 

Federal government actions (86 FR 

7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA 

defines environmental justice as the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies’’ (https://www.epa.gov/ 

environmentaljustice). In recognizing 

that people of color and low-income 

populations often bear an unequal 

burden of environmental harms and 

risks, the EPA continues to consider 

ways of protecting them from adverse 

public health and environmental effects 

of air pollution. 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with the source category, 

we performed a demographic analysis 

which is an assessment of individual 

demographic groups of the populations 

living within 5 km and within 50 km of 

the facilities. The EPA then compared 

the data from this analysis to the 

national average for the demographic 

indicators. Based on that analysis, we 

found that the demographic profile 

within 5 km and 50 km of the LAB 

facilities shows the following groups 

above the national average: Hispanics, 

Ages 18–64, People living below the 

Poverty Level, 25 years old or greater 

without a High School Diploma, and 

People living in Linguistic Isolation, as 

shown in Table 2. The methodology and 

results of the demographic analysis are 

presented in more detail in the 

memorandum, which is available in the 

docket, Analysis of Demographic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area 

Sources. 

TABLE 2—LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCES: PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS—5 

km AND 50 km STUDY AREA RADIUS

Population 

within 

50 km of 39 

facilities 

(%) 

Population 

within 

5 km of 39 

facilities 

(%) 

Nationwide Source Category 

Total Population ................................................................................................................................... 328,016,242 47,907,121 2,233,864 

White and People of Color by Percent 

White .................................................................................................................................................... 60 52 37 

People of Color .................................................................................................................................... 40 48 63 

People of Color by Percent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10156 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/ 

naaqs-table. 

13https://www.epa.gov/naaqs. 

TABLE 2—LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCES: PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS—5 

km AND 50 km STUDY AREA RADIUS—Continued 

Population 

within 

50 km of 39 

facilities 

(%) 

Population 

within 

5 km of 39 

facilities 

(%) 

African American ................................................................................................................................. 12 12 10 

Native American .................................................................................................................................. 0.7 0.3 0.2 

Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ............................................................................... 19 25 43 

Other and Multiracial ........................................................................................................................... 8 11 9 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level ............................................................................................................................ 13 12 14 

Above Poverty Level ............................................................................................................................ 87 88 86 

Age Groups by Percent 

Age (Years) 0–17 ................................................................................................................................ 22 22 23 

Age (Years) 18–64 .............................................................................................................................. 62 63 64 

Age (Years) >=65 ................................................................................................................................ 16 15 13 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ...................................................................................... 12 14 19 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ........................................................................................... 88 86 81 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent 

Linguistically Isolated ........................................................................................................................... 5 7 9 

As explained in section IV.A, ambient 

air quality monitoring data and 

modeling analyses indicate that ambient 

Pb concentrations near the facilities are 

all below the NAAQS for Pb. The CAA 

identifies two types of NAAQS; primary 

and secondary standards. Primary 

standards provide public health 

protection, including protecting the 

health of ‘‘sensitive’’ populations such 

as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. 

Secondary standards provide public 

welfare protection including protection 

against decreased visibility and damage 

to animals, crops, vegetation, and 

buildings.12 Both the primary and 

secondary NAAQS for Pb are 0.15/m3

based on a 3-month rolling average. The 

primary NAAQS are designed to protect 

public health with an adequate margin 

of safety.13 Therefore, we conclude that 

the emissions from lead acid battery 

area source facilities are not likely to 

pose significant risks or impacts to 

human health if facilities are complying 

with the NESHAP. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on this proposed 

action. In addition to general comments 

on this proposed action, we are also 

interested in additional data that may 

improve the analyses. We are 

specifically interested in receiving any 

information regarding developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that reduce Pb emissions. 

VII. Incorporation by Reference 

The EPA proposes to amend the 40 

CFR 60.17 to incorporate by reference 

for one VCS 

• ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016, 

IBR requested for 40 CFR 60.374a(d)(2). 

This method is an acceptable alternative 

to the EPA’s Method 9 under specific 

conditions stated in 40 CFR 

60.374a(d)(2)(I) through (v). This test 

method described the procedures to use 

the Digital Camera Opacity Techniques 

(DCOT) to obtain and interpret the 

digital images in determining and 

reporting plume opacity. It also 

describes procedures to certify the 

DCOT. 

The EPA proposes to amend the 40 

CFR 63.14 to incorporate by reference 

for one VCS 

• ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016, 

IBR requested for 40 CFR 

63.11423(c)(4)(ii). This method is an 

acceptable alternative to the EPA’s 

Method 9 under specific conditions 

stated in 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(4)(ii)(A) 

through (E). This test method described 

the procedures to use the Digital Camera 

Opacity Techniques (DCOT) to obtain 

and interpret the digital images in 

determining and reporting plume 

opacity. It also describes procedures to 

certify the DCOT. 

The ASTM documents are available 

from the American Society of Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) at https://

www.astm.org; by mail at 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; or by 

telephone at (610) 832–9500. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to OMB for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) documents that the EPA 

prepared have been assigned EPA ICR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10157 

numbers 1072.14 for the NSPS KKa and 

2256.07 for the NESHAP. You can find 

a copy of the ICRs in the docket for this 

rule, and they are briefly summarized 

here. The ICRs are specific to 

information collection associated with 

the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

source category, through the new 40 

CFR part 60, subpart KKa and 

amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

PPPPPP. We are proposing changes to 

the testing, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart PPPPPP, in the form of 

requiring performance tests every 5 

years and including the requirement for 

electronic submittal of reports. In 

addition, the number of facilities subject 

to the standards changed. The number 

of respondents was revised from 41 to 

45 for the NESHAP based on our review 

of operating permits and consultation 

with industry representatives and state/ 

local agencies. We are proposing 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the new 

40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, including 

notifications of construction/ 

reconstruction, initial startup, conduct 

of performance tests, and physical or 

operational changes; reports of opacity 

results, performance test results and 

semiannual reports if excess emissions 

occur or continuous emissions 

monitoring systems are used; and 

keeping records of performance test 

results and pressure drop monitoring. 

Respondents/affected entities: The 

respondents to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are owners or 

operators of lead acid battery 

manufacturing sources subject to 40 

CFR part 60, subpart KKa and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart PPPPPP. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa 

and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP). 

Estimated number of respondents: 45 

facilities for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

PPPPPP and 0 facilities for 40 CFR part 

60, subpart KKa. 

Frequency of response: The frequency 

of responses varies depending on the 

burden item. Responses include 

onetime review of rule amendments, 

reports of performance tests, and 

semiannual excess emissions and 

continuous monitoring system 

performance reports. 

Total estimated burden: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

responding facilities to comply with all 

of the requirements in the new NSPS 

KKa and the NESHAP, averaged over 

the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to 

be 2,580 hours (per year). The average 

annual burden to the Agency over the 3 

years after the amendments are final is 

estimated to be 66 hours (per year). 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting cost for 

responding facilities to comply with all 

of the requirements in the NSPS KKa 

and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 

years of this ICR, is estimated to be 

$174,000 (rounded, per year). There are 

no estimated capital and operation and 

maintenance costs. The total average 

annual Agency cost over the first 3 years 

after the amendments are final is 

estimated to be $3,380. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than March 25, 2022. The EPA will 

respond to any ICR-related comments in 

the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are small businesses that own 

lead acid battery facilities. The Agency 

has determined that there are nine small 

businesses subject to the requirements 

of this action, and that eight of these 

small businesses are estimated to 

experience impacts of less than 1 

percent of their revenues. The Agency 

estimates that one small business may 

experience an impact of approximately 

1.3 percent of their annual revenues 

once every 5 years mainly due to the 

compliance testing requirements, with 

this one small business representing 

approximately 11 percent of the total 

number of affected small entities. The 

other four of the five years, we estimate 

the costs would be less than 1 percent 

of annual revenues for this one small 

business. Details of this analysis are 

presented in Economic Impact and 

Small Business Analysis for the Lead 

Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS 

Review and NESHAP Area Source 

Technology Review, which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. No tribal facilities are 

known to be engaged in the industries 

that would be affected by this action nor 

are there any adverse health or 

environmental effects from this action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s assessments of 

potential impacts to human health are 

contained in section IV.A of this 

preamble. The proposed work practices 

to minimize fugitive dust containing 

lead and the proposed new and revised 

emission limits described in section 

IV.B and IV.C will reduce actual and/or 

allowable lead emissions, thereby 

reducing potential exposure to children, 

including the unborn. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
10158 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches through the 

Enhanced NSSN Database managed by 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 

that are relevant to this action. The 

Agency also contacted VCS 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. Searches were 

conducted for the EPA Methods 9, 12, 

and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

No applicable VCS were identified for 

EPA Methods 12 and 29 for lead. 

During the search, if the title or 

abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s reference method, the EPA 

considered it as a potential equivalent 

method. All potential standards were 

reviewed to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data which meets the requirements of 

the EPA Method 301 for accepting 

alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to 

procedures in the EPA reference 

methods. The EPA may reconsider 

determinations of impracticality when 

additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

One voluntary consensus standard 

was identified as acceptable alternative 

to EPA test methods for the purposes of 

this rule. The voluntary consensus 

standard ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determining the 

Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor 

Ambient Atmosphere’’ is an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 9 with the 

following conditions: 

1. During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT 

vendor must present the plumes in front 

of various backgrounds of color and 

contrast representing conditions 

anticipated during field use such as blue 

sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds 

(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). 

2. You must also have standard 

operating procedures in place including 

daily or other frequency quality checks 

to ensure the equipment is within 

manufacturing specifications as 

outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520– 

16. 

3. You must follow the record keeping 

procedures outlined in § 63.10(b)(1) for 

the DCOT certification, compliance 

report, data sheets, and all raw 

unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 

certification determination. 

4. You or the DCOT vendor must have 

a minimum of four (4) independent 

technology users apply the software to 

determine the visible opacity of the 300 

certification plumes. For each set of 25 

plumes, the user may not exceed 15 

percent opacity of anyone reading and 

the average error must not exceed 7.5 

percent opacity. 

5. This approval does not provide or 

imply a certification or validation of any 

vendor’s hardware or software. The 

onus to maintain and verify the 

certification and/or training of the 

DCOT camera, software and operator in 

accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and 

this letter is on the facility, DCOT 

operator, and DCOT vendor. 

The search identified one VCS that 

was potentially applicable for this rule 

in lieu of EPA reference methods. After 

reviewing the available standards, EPA 

determined that one candidate VCS 

(ASTM D4358–94 (1999)) identified for 

measuring emissions of pollutants or 

their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be 

practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. Additional information 

for the VCS search and determinations 

can be found in the memorandum, 

Voluntary Consensus Standard Results 

for Review of Standards of Performance 

for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 

Plants and National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead 

Acid Battery, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 

68.3(f) of subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to the 

EPA to use alternative test methods or 

alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, 

performance specifications or 

procedures in the final rule or any 

amendments. The EPA welcomes 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify potentially 

applicable VCS and to explain why such 

standards should be used in this 

regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in section V.C and V.E of 

this preamble. As discussed in section 

V.E of this preamble, we performed a 

demographic analysis for the lead acid 

battery manufacturing source category, 

which is an assessment of the proximity 

of individual demographic groups living 

close to the facilities (within 50 km and 

within 5 km). Results of the 

demographic analysis indicate that the 

following groups above the national 

average: Hispanics, Ages 18–64, People 

living below the Poverty Level, 25 years 

old or greater without a High School 

Diploma, and People living in Linguistic 

Isolation. However, based on analyses of 

emissions and available ambient 

monitoring data (described in section 

IV.A of this preamble), we conclude 

ambient Pb concentrations near the 

facilities are all below the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for Pb and therefore the sources are not 

likely to pose significant risks to human 

health. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03396 Filed 2–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

48 CFR Parts 801, 802, 808, 816, 835, 

and 852 

RIN 2900–AQ23 

VA Acquisition Regulation: 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Acquisition Regulation System and 

Research and Development 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and 

update its VA Acquisition Regulation 

(VAAR) in phased increments to revise 

or remove any policy superseded by 

changes in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural 

guidance internal to VA into the VA 

Acquisition Manual (VAAM), and to 

incorporate any new agency specific 

regulations or policies. These changes 

seek to streamline and align the VAAR 

with the FAR and remove outdated and 

duplicative requirements and reduce 

burden on contractors. The VAAM 

incorporates portions of the removed 

VAAR as well as other internal agency 

acquisition policy. VA will rewrite 

certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, 

and as VAAR parts are rewritten, will 

publish them in the Federal Register. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS