[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10134-10158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03396]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#27460a4649430a550a4348444c42536742574609404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0d19dd1ded49dc29dd4dfd3dbd5c4f0d5c0d19ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0619 in the subject line of the message.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96fef7f8e5f3f8b8f7fbf7f8f2f7d6f3e6f7b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="056d646b76606b2b6468646b6164456075642b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
in-person public meetings at this time.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89dad9d9cdf9fcebe5e0eae1ece8fbe0e7eec9ecf9e8a7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dd8e8d8d99ada8bfb1b4beb5b8bcafb4b3ba9db8adbcf3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-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/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission or contact the public 
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4e7e4e4f0c4c1d6d8ddd7dcd1d5c6dddad3f4d1c4d59ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9eae9e9fdc9ccdbd5d0dad1dcd8cbd0d7def9dcc9d897ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 pre-registered speakers in approximate 
order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c444d425f4942024d414d42484d6c495c4d024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c646d627f6962226d616d62686d4c697c6d226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2b1b2b2a69297808e8b818a8783908b8c85a2879283cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b686b6b7f4b4e59575258535e5a4952555c7b5e4b5a155c544d">[email protected]</span></a> 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 pre-register 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

[[Page 10136]]

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107f71616063737279507560713e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e414f5f5e5d4d4c476e4b5e4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#37585646474454555e7752475619505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cea1afbfbebdadaca78eabbeafe0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a> 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
[mu]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions


[[Page 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 Decision-Making
    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-lightning-
ignition (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/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission. 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-sources-air-pollution//lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-
sources-national-emission. 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-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-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

[[Page 10138]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 10139]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ East Penn Manufacturing, located in Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Information provided by state agencies. This included such 
data as emissions tests, inspection reports, and emissions reports.
    <bullet> Communication with the industry association representing 
the industry in the affected NAICS category and their members.
    <bullet> Search of the Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable 
Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC).
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Expected growth for the source category, including how 
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger 
NSPS in the next 8 years.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 10140]]

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'':
    <bullet> Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT 
standards;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original GACT 
standards;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 [mu]g/
m\3\ (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 
[mu]g/m\3\) 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 [mu]g/m\3\ 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 well-controlled 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

[[Page 10141]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 10142]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 1989 draft review document (titled Review of New Source 
Performance Standards for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture, Preliminary 
Draft, October 1989) is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Secondary Lead RTR Proposed Rule, 76 FR 29032, May 19, 
2011, and the Final rule, 77 FR 556, January 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that fabric filters are a well-demonstrated 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

[[Page 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 ([micro]m). The diameter specification of 0.3 [micro]m 
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

[[Page 10144]]

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 three-process 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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 one-time 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,

[[Page 10146]]

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):
    <bullet> A revised Pb emission limit for grid casting operations 
and lead reclamation to reflect developments in technology;
    <bullet> A revised Pb emission limit for paste mixing operations at 
large facilities to reflect developments in technology;
    <bullet> Improved monitoring of emission points controlled by 
fabric filters and scrubbers;
    <bullet> Bag leak detection systems for large facilities;
    <bullet> Performance testing requirements; and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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 semi-annual 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

[[Page 10148]]

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

[[Page 10149]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \7\ See EPA Form 5900-577 
Lead_Acid_Battery_Manufacturing_Semiannual_Excess_Emissions_CMS_Perfo
rmance_Report_Template.xlsx available at Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 10150]]

consistent with the EPA's plan \8\ to implement Executive Order 13563 
and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \9\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \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/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 lead-bearing scrap that is obtained from 
non-category 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. EPA, Court Vacatur of Exemption from Emission 
Standards During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. (86 
FR 13819, March 11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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.

[[Page 10152]]

    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 
lead-bearing scrap that is obtained from non-category sources or from 
any offsite operation. 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 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.

[[Page 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 semi-annually).
    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

[[Page 10154]]

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 brand-new 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total capital   Total annual      Number of
     Proposed requirement       costs for the   costs for the    facilities      Capital costs     Annual costs
                                  industry        industry        impacted       per facility      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           2,700,000         544,000              10  $0 to $814,000..  $0 to $164,000.
 Requirements.
Revised Limit for Paste               750,000         345,000               5  $150,000........  $69,000.
 Mixing.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for all proposed          3,800,000       1,340,000          \b\ 45  $0 to $996,000..  $0 to $294,000.
     requirements other than
     testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These are initial costs to create a fugitive dust plan. Total estimated costs to industry would be $350,000,
  or approximately $7,600 per facility.
\b\ This ``45'' includes 39 LAB NESHAP Manufacturing facilities and six facilities affected by the proposed
  applicability clarification described above.


[[Page 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 low-income 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    Population
                                               within  50   within  5 km
                                                km of 39        of 39
                                               facilities    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
                                ----------------------------------------

[[Page 10156]]

 
African American...............           12            12            10
Native American................          0.7           0.3           0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes              19            25            43
 white and nonwhite)...........
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                12            14            19
 School Diploma................
Over 25 and with a High School            88            86            81
 Diploma.......................
                                ----------------------------------------
                                    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/m\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
    \13\ https://www.epa.gov/naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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/laws-regulations/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

[[Page 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<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc83afa9beb1b5afafb5b3b29cb3b1bef2b9b3acf2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b44686e79767268687274755b747679357e746b357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>, 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.

[[Page 10158]]

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 Sec.  
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, low-income 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>