Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619-0051
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: New Source Performance Standards Review for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology Review
Posted Date: 2023-02-23T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11556-11597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02989]

[[Page 11555]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 36

February 23, 2023

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

New Source Performance Standards Review for Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Technology 
Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 11556]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619; FRL-8602-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV43

New Source Performance Standards Review 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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes 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 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 finalizing revised 
lead emission limits for grid casting, paste mixing, and lead 
reclamation operations for both the area source NESHAP and under a new 
NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that begin 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022). 
In addition, the EPA is finalizing the following amendments for both 
the area source NESHAP and under the new NSPS subpart: performance 
testing once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to 
minimize emissions of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection 
frequency of fabric filters; 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 startup, shutdown, and 
malfunctions (SSM). The EPA is also finalizing 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. In 
addition, the EPA is finalizing a requirement in the new NSPS for new 
facilities to operate bag leak detection systems for emission points 
controlled by a fabric filter that do not include a secondary fabric 
filter.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 23, 2023. The 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 
23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. 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 form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this 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; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble 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
BCI Battery Council International
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
[micro]m microns
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
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pb lead
RACT reasonably available control technology
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
tpd tons per day
tpy tons per year
TR technology review
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Background information. On February 23, 2022 (87 FR 10134), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source 
NESHAP based on our technology review (TR) and proposed a new NSPS 
subpart based on the best systems of emission reduction (BSER) review. 
In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the 
rules. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely 
received regarding the proposed rules and provide our responses in this 
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and 
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the New Source 
Performance Standards for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid 
Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses on Proposed Rules (hereafter referred to as the ``Comment 
Summary and Response Document'') in the docket for this action, Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619. A ``track changes'' version of the 
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is 
also available in the docket.
    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?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background

[[Page 11557]]

    A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS and NESHAP reviews?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
    D. What changes did we propose for the lead acid battery 
manufacturing source category in our February 23, 2022, proposal?
    E. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct with 
environmental justice communities?
III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for 
such decisions?
    A. NSPS
    B. NESHAP
    C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
V. 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
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source category that is the subject of this final action is 
lead acid battery manufacturing regulated under CAA section 111 New 
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and under CAA section 112 National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the lead acid 
battery manufacturing industry is 335911. The NAICS code serves as a 
guide for readers outlining the type of entities that this final action 
is likely to affect. 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 for purposes 
of CAA section 112 includes any facility engaged in producing lead acid 
or lead acid storage batteries, including, but not limited to, 
starting-lighting-ignition 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). Lead acid battery manufacturing was identified as a source 
category under CAA section 111 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). Federal, state, local and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this action. If you have 
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, you should carefully examine the applicability 
criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart PPPPPP, or consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state air pollution 
control agency with delegated authority for NSPS and NESHAP, or your 
EPA Regional Office.

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 final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final 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 (FR), the EPA will post the Federal Register 
version and key technical documents at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the court) by April 24, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel 
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail 
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 11558]]

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?

1. NSPS
    The EPA's authority for this final NSPS rule is CAA section 111, 
which governs the establishment of standards of performance for 
stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) 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 that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and 
modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to 
CAA section 111(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.
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' NSPS. However, the 
Administrator need not review any such standard if the ``Administrator 
determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily 
available information on the efficacy'' of the standard. When 
conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has 
the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or 
emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.
    In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section 
111(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 nonair quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of 
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) 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(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate ``a 
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or 
combination thereof'' if in his or her judgment, ``it is not feasible 
to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section 
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under which prescribing or 
enforcing a standard of performance is ``not feasible,'' such as, when 
the pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit 
or capture the pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement 
methodology for the particular class of sources.
    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 section 111(a)(2), 
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the 
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section 
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in 
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the 
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in 
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an 
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are 
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, 
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing 
facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components 
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to 
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is 
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable 
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of 
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon 
promulgation.
2. NESHAP
    The statutory authority for this NESHAP 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 (GACT) standards that 
apply to area sources.\1\ This action finalizes 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 EPA is not 
required to conduct a residual risk review under CAA section 
112(f)(2). However, the EPA is required to conduct periodic 
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action as they 
specifically address regulation of hazardous air pollutant 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

[[Page 11559]]

for each area source category. Consistent with the legislative history, 
we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining what 
constitutes GACT.
    GACT standards were set for the lead acid battery manufacturing 
source category on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38864). As noted above, this 
action finalizes the required CAA 112(d)(6) technology review for that 
source category.

B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS and NESHAP reviews?

1. NSPS
    As noted in section II.A, CAA section 111 requires the EPA, at 
least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise the standards 
of performance applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources. 
If the EPA revises the standards of performance, they must reflect the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
BSER taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any 
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements 
(see CAA section 111(a)(1)).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to 
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory 
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:
     Expected growth for the source category, including how 
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger 
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control 
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or 
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately 
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and 
enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations 
and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards 
are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with 
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through 
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
    In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission 
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated 
with the air pollution control measure or level of control, including 
capital costs and operating costs, and the emission reductions that the 
control measure or level of control can achieve. The Agency considers 
these costs in the context of the industry's overall capital 
expenditures and revenues. The Agency also considers cost effectiveness 
analysis as a useful metric, and a means of evaluating whether a given 
control achieves emission reduction at a reasonable cost. A cost 
effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of relative costs and 
outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In general, cost 
effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by resources spent. 
In the context of air pollution control options, cost effectiveness 
typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing an air 
pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant reductions 
realized annually.
    After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the 
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is 
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a 
standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this 
analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is 
appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may 
identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards 
for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination 
leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of 
publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because 
the new source performance standards reflect the best system of 
emission reduction under conditions of proper operation and 
maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines 
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.
2. NESHAP
    For the NESHAP area source GACT standards, we perform a technology 
review that primarily focuses on the identification and evaluation of 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the standards were promulgated. Where we identify 
such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated 
costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also 
consider the emission reductions associated with applying each 
development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is 
``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we 
consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus 
retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of 
the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original GACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original GACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original GACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original GACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of 
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider.

C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?

    The lead acid battery manufacturing source category consists of 
facilities engaged in producing lead acid batteries. The EPA first 
promulgated new source performance standards for lead acid battery 
manufacturing on April 16, 1982. These standards of performance are 
codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, and are applicable to sources 
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after 
January 14, 1980 (47 FR 16564). The EPA also set GACT standards for the 
lead acid battery manufacturing source category on July 16, 2007. These 
standards are codified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, and are 
applicable to existing and new affected facilities.
    Under 40 CFR 60, subpart KK, and 40 CFR 63, subpart PPPPPP, a lead 
acid battery manufacturing plant is defined

[[Page 11560]]

as any plant that produces a storage battery using lead and lead 
compounds for the plates and sulfuric acid for the electrolyte. 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 grid 
casting operations, which entails stamping or casting lead into grids. 
Next, in paste mixing operations, 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 performed in one operation 
termed the ``three-process operation.'' At some facilities, lead 
reclamation may be performed, in which relatively clean lead scrap from 
these processes is collected and remelted into blocks, called ingots, 
for reuse in the process.
    The NSPS applies to all lead acid battery manufacturing plants 
constructed, reconstructed, or modified since January 14, 1980, if they 
produce or have the design capacity to produce batteries containing 5.9 
megagrams (6.5 tons) or more of lead in one day. The NSPS contains 
emission limits for lead and opacity limits for grid casting, paste 
mixing, three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, other lead 
emitting sources, and lead reclamation at lead acid battery 
manufacturing plants. The NESHAP applies to all lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities that are area sources regardless of production 
capacity. The GACT standards include the same emissions and opacity 
limits as those in the NSPS as well as some additional monitoring 
requirements.
    The EPA estimates that, of the 40 existing lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities in the U.S., all are subject to the NSPS, and 
39 facilities are subject to the NESHAP. One facility is a major source 
as defined under CAA section 112 and is therefore not subject to the 
area source GACT standards. In addition to these 40 facilities, we 
estimate that there are four facilities that perform one or more 
processes (e.g., grid casting or lead oxide production) involved in the 
production of lead acid batteries but that do not manufacture the final 
product (i.e., lead acid batteries). These four facilities have not 
previously been subject to either the NSPS or the area source NESHAP. 
The EPA does not expect any new lead acid battery manufacturing 
facilities nor any facilities that conduct a lead acid battery 
manufacturing process without producing the final lead acid battery 
product to be constructed in the foreseeable future. However, we do 
expect that some existing facilities of both types could undergo 
modifications or reconstruction.

D. What changes did we propose for the lead acid battery manufacturing 
source category in our February 23, 2022, proposal?

    On February 23, 2022, the EPA published proposed rules in the 
Federal Register (87 FR 10134) for the NSPS for Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa) and the NESHAP for 
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
PPPPPP) that were based on the BSER review for the NSPS and the 
technology review for the NESHAP. The EPA proposed revised lead 
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 
manufacturing facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after February 23, 2022). In addition, the Agency proposed 
the following amendments for both the area source NESHAP (for new and 
existing sources) and under the new NSPS subpart: 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 facilities 
above a certain size (i.e., facilities with capacity to process greater 
than 150 tons per day (tpd) of lead); 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 SSM. The EPA also proposed 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. For additional information regarding the proposed rule, please 
see the February 23, 2022, proposal (87 FR 10134).

E. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct with environmental 
justice communities?

    As part of this rulemaking and pursuant to multiple Executive 
Orders addressing environmental justice (EJ), the EPA engaged and 
consulted with the public, including populations of people of color and 
low-income populations, by sending out listserv notifications to EJ 
representatives regarding the publication of the proposed rule and 
providing the opportunity for members of the public to speak at a 
public hearing regarding the proposed rule amendments. While no one 
requested to speak at a public hearing, these opportunities gave the 
EPA a chance to hear directly from the public, especially communities 
potentially impacted by this final action. To identify pertinent 
stakeholders for engaging discussions of the rule, we used information 
available to the Agency, such as lists of EJ community representatives 
and activists, and information from the EJ analysis conducted for this 
rule and summarized in section IV.F. of this preamble.
    Although most of the comments received following the proposal were 
technical in nature, some commenters remarked on issues regarding the 
rule's effectiveness in protecting health and welfare in EJ 
communities, such as the need to close rule loopholes and the need for 
the EPA to conduct health risk assessments. Responses to several of the 
technical related comments are summarized, and responded to, in this 
preamble. All other comments and the EPA's responses are provided in 
the Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for 
this action, and section III of the preamble provides a description of 
how the Agency considered these comments in the context of regulatory 
development.

III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such 
decisions?

    The EPA proposed the current review of the lead acid battery 
manufacturing NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK) and NESHAP (40 CFR part 
63, subpart PPPPPP) on February 23, 2022. We proposed to create a new 
NSPS subpart at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, to include the proposed 
revisions to the NSPS for affected sources that are new, modified, or 
reconstructed following the date of the proposal, and we proposed 
revisions to the NESHAP within 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. We 
received

[[Page 11561]]

eight comments from industry, environmental groups, and private 
individuals during the comment period. A summary of the more 
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and 
our responses are provided in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those 
comments is available in the Comment Summary and Response Document in 
the docket for this action, (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0619). In 
this action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions pursuant to 
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) and CAA section 112(d)(6) review for lead acid 
battery manufacturing after our considerations of all the comments 
received.

A. NSPS

    As mentioned above, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for 
lead acid battery manufacturing pursuant to the CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is promulgating the NSPS revisions in a 
new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa. The new NSPS subpart is 
applicable to affected sources constructed, modified, or reconstructed 
after February 23, 2022.
    This action finalizes standards of performance in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa, for paste mixing operations, grid casting, and lead 
reclamation, as well as work practice standards to reduce fugitive dust 
emissions in the lead oxide unloading and storage area. The standards 
of performance and work practice standards finalized in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa, will apply at all times, including during periods of SSM. 
The EPA is also finalizing in the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the 
requirements for electronic reporting, monitoring, and other compliance 
assurance measures such as performance testing every 5 years, quarterly 
fabric filter inspections, and recording pressure drop or visible 
emissions readings twice a day for fabric filter systems without a 
secondary filter or bag leak detection system requirements.
    The EPA notes that we are not amending 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, 
to add electronic reporting requirements in this action. While it is 
generally the EPA's practice to implement electronic reporting 
requirements in each prior NSPS as we conduct reviews and promulgate 
each new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, does not impose any regular, 
ongoing reporting requirements. However, facilities are expected to 
comply with the applicable electronic reporting requirements that the 
EPA is finalizing under the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 
the NESHAP.
1. Revised NSPS for Grid Casting Facilities
    The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for grid casting, 
which were established in 1982, are 0.4 milligrams per dry standard 
cubic meters (mg/dscm) and 0 percent opacity which were based on what 
was then determined to be the BSER of impingement scrubbers with an 
estimated 90 percent lead emissions control efficiency. Through the 
BSER review conducted for the source category, which is documented in 
the memorandum Technology Review and NSPS Review for Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing (hereafter referred to as the ``Technology Review 
Memorandum''), available in the docket for this action, we found that 
since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it has become feasible and 
common for lead acid battery manufacturing plants to control lead 
emissions from grid casting processes with fabric filters. Through this 
review, we discovered that at least 30 of the 40 facilities currently 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are now using fabric filters and 
these are also sometimes combined with other controls, such as high 
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters or a scrubber to control 
emissions from grid casting. Furthermore, we did not identify any 
facilities using only a wet scrubber. Therefore, we concluded at 
proposal that fabric filters are clearly feasible and well demonstrated 
as an appropriate control technology for grid casting operations. With 
regard to control efficiency of a fabric filter, for the February 2022 
proposed rule, we assumed control efficiency would be 99 percent, which 
was based on estimates presented in the background document for the 
proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR 2790) and in the 1989 EPA technical 
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.
    At proposal, to assess whether fabric filters are the BSER for 
controlling lead emissions from grid casting, we examined the costs and 
emission reductions from installing and operating fabric filters with 
assumed 99 percent control efficiency at new large facilities (i.e., 
facilities with capacity to process 150 tons or more of lead per day) 
and new small facilities (i.e., facilities with capacity to process 
less than 150 tons of lead per day).\2\ We estimated that the cost 
effectiveness of achieving a 99 percent reduction of lead through the 
use of fabric filters, as compared to the costs of maintaining the 40 
CFR part 60, subpart KK, requirement of a 90 percent reduction of lead 
through the use of wet scrubbers, would be $333,000 per ton of lead 
reduced for a new large facility and $524,000 per ton of lead reduced 
for a new small facility. We found that both of these values are within 
the range of what the EPA has considered in other rulemakings to be 
cost-effective for control of lead emissions. Based on this 
information, we proposed that fabric filters (with an assumed 99 
percent control efficiency) represent the new BSER for grid casting, 
and we proposed to revise the lead emissions limit for grid casting 
from 0.4 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter of process 
exhaust (mg/dscm) to 0.04 mg of lead per dscm of process exhaust to 
reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 
application of the proposed BSER (i.e., a fabric filter, with assumed 
improved efficiency of 99 percent versus 90 percent). We also proposed 
to retain the opacity standard of 0 percent for grid casting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ At proposal, we split the analysis into two size categories 
that would better represent the source category because of the range 
in facility size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received one comment regarding this proposed BSER 
determination and proposed standard of performance. There were no 
comments regarding our proposal to retain the opacity standard of 0 
percent. The commenter (Battery Council International [BCI]) claimed 
that the EPA's calculations of the benefits of moving from scrubbers to 
fabric filters for grid casting and for adding secondary HEPA filters 
to paste mixing operations (discussed later in this preamble) are 
flawed because the EPA incorrectly models these filters as control 
devices with constant, rather than variable, efficiency. The commenter 
relates that when the amount of lead emissions entering these devices 
is low, the removal efficiency is far lower than their nominal removal 
efficiency and that only at the extreme high end of inlet loading 
concentrations is the nominal removal efficiency obtained. Due to this 
factor, the commenter states that the EPA's assumed removal efficiency 
from these devices is unrealistically high. The commenter also states 
that the removal efficiency can fall below 90 percent compared to the 
nominal removal efficiency of 99 percent for fabric filters.
    The commenter also claimed that the EPA's costs for a new baghouse 
(also

[[Page 11562]]

referred to as fabric filter system or fabric filters in other parts of 
this preamble) were underestimated and provided both a cost analysis 
for a new baghouse in which they assumed the same 99 percent removal 
efficiency as the EPA did in its analysis of cost effectiveness but 
used increased equipment costs, and another analysis in which the 
commenter assumed a removal efficiency of 95 percent along with the 
increased equipment costs. The claimed results of BCI's analyses showed 
higher costs per ton of lead emissions removed compared with the 
results of the EPA analyses.
    Considering the available data at the time of proposal, we proposed 
a limit of 0.04 mg/dscm, which represented the emissions reduction 
thought possible with the proposed BSER technology (i.e., a fabric 
filter, assumed to achieve an estimated 99 percent emissions removal 
efficiency instead of the estimated 90 percent efficiency of the wet 
scrubber). Based on the commenter's suggestion that emissions removal 
efficiencies are lower than what the EPA estimated at proposal, we 
obtained additional stack test data for several facilities to determine 
what emissions levels are currently achieved by fabric filters. From 
this data gathering effort, we examined stack test data for eight 
facilities using fabric filters to control emissions from grid casting, 
with data for four facilities having stacks that service only grid 
casting and the other four stacks that service multiple processes. The 
stack test results show that the four facilities with primary fabric 
filter systems controlling just grid casting emissions have emissions 
ranging from 0.011 mg/dscm to 0.1 mg/dscm. More information on the data 
used in our analysis is detailed in the memorandum Revised Emission 
Limits for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid Casting 
and Paste Mixing Operations, available in the docket for this action. 
Using these data, we calculated the 99 percent upper prediction limit 
(UPL) of 0.08 mg/dscm.
    The UPL value is the result of the statistical methodology the EPA 
uses to account for the variability and uncertainty in emissions that 
occurs over time and over expected varying operating conditions. The 
EPA has used the UPL to address the variability of emission data in in 
other rulemakings (e.g., setting MACT standards). The UPL is a value, 
calculated from a dataset, that identifies the average emissions level 
that a source or group of sources is meeting and would be expected to 
meet a specified percent of the time that the source is operating. That 
percent of time is based on the confidence level used in the UPL 
equation. The 99 percent UPL is the emissions level that the sources 
would be predicted to emit below during 99 out of 100 performance 
tests, including emissions tests conducted in the past, present and 
future, based on the short-term stack test data available for that 
source. For more information about this analysis, see the Upper 
Prediction Limit for Grid Casting and Paste Mixing Operations at Lead 
Acid Battery Facilities (hereafter referred to as ``UPL Memorandum'') 
available in the rulemaking docket for this action.
    The intent of the EPA at proposal was to set the emissions standard 
at the level that would reflect the application of the BSER (i.e., a 
fabric filter). At proposal, we assumed an improved efficiency of the 
standard of performance reflected the application of fabric filters 
with 99 percent efficiency to control emissions. We used the control 
efficiency of 99 percent based on the analysis conducted in the 
background document for the proposed rule in 1980 (45 FR 2790) to 
derive the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm. However, based on the 
comments received and the results of the UPL analysis, we are now 
analyzing the use of a fabric filter that would achieve an emissions 
level of 0.08 mg/dscm for our final BSER determination.
    We updated our cost analysis for a new source to install a fabric 
filter system versus a wet scrubber based on comments received from 
BCI. We agree with the cost estimates provided by the commenter and 
have used those in an updated cost effectiveness analysis. We estimate 
that the updated incremental annualized costs of using a fabric filter 
system are $52,000 for a small plant and $88,000 for a large plant.
    We do not agree that a fabric filter system would achieve only 95 
percent efficiency for grid casting emissions. Based on the available 
stack test data, the calculated UPL which accounts for variability, and 
the calculations described above, the emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm 
reflects the use of fabric filters controlling grid casting emissions. 
To estimate the incremental emissions reductions that would be 
achieved, we estimated the current limit of 0.4 mg/dscm reflects a 90 
percent reduction compared to baseline (uncontrolled) based on the 
background document for the 1980 proposed rule (45 FR 2790) and in the 
1989 EPA technical document cited above, and therefore we estimate that 
the revised limit (of 0.08 mg/dscm) based on the UPL would represent a 
98 percent reduction. As we described in the proposed rule preamble, we 
estimate lead emissions for a small and large uncontrolled grid casting 
facility are 0.5 tons per year (tpy) and 1.3 tpy, respectively. We 
estimate lead emissions for a small and large baseline grid casting 
facility which is complying with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, emission 
limit of 0.4 mg/dscm which is based on a wet scrubber (with assumed 90 
percent efficiency) would be 0.05 tpy and 0.13 tpy, respectively. We 
estimate lead emissions for a small and large model facility that will 
comply with an emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm based on the application 
of a fabric filter (using the derived 98 percent efficiency described 
above) are 0.01 tpy and 0.026 tpy, respectively. The incremental lead 
reduction (from 90 percent to 98 percent) is 0.04 tpy for small 
facilities and 0.104 tpy for large facilities. We estimate that for a 
hypothetical new small plant, cost effectiveness is approximately 
$1.23M/ton of lead reduced and for a hypothetical new large plant, cost 
effectiveness is $846,000/ton of lead reduced. These cost effectiveness 
values are within the range of what we have historically accepted in 
the past for lead. Details regarding our cost estimates are in the 
Estimated Cost Impacts of Best System of Emission Reduction Review of 
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KK and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP 
Technology Review-Final Rule, hereafter referred to as ``Cost Impacts 
Memorandum,'' available in the docket for this action. We conclude that 
the application of fabric filters to control grid casting emissions is 
cost-effective and has been adequately demonstrated at existing 
sources. We have also learned, there may be additional advantages for 
facilities to use fabric filters instead of wet scrubbers to control 
grid casting emissions. Some advantages of using fabric filters 
include: the potential for higher collection efficiency; less 
sensitivity to gas stream fluctuations; availability in large number of 
configurations, and that collected material is recovered dry and can be 
sent to a secondary lead facility for recycling, lowering the hazardous 
waste disposal costs for facilities. Therefore, based on our analysis 
and the information above, we have determined that the BSER for grid 
casting operations is fabric filter systems with an estimated 98 
percent control efficiency.
    Based on the UPL analysis presented we find that the emission level 
that appropriately reflects the BSER is 0.08 mg/dscm. In addition, we 
find that the proposed emissions limit of 0.04 mg/dscm (that reflected 
an estimated control efficiency of 99 percent efficiency) would go 
beyond the level of emission limitation generally achievable

[[Page 11563]]

through the application of BSER. Based on our analyses, we conclude 
that additional controls beyond BSER would be needed to meet the 
proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm. Additional controls, such as a 
secondary HEPA filter, to meet the proposed limit of 0.04 mg/dscm were 
determined to not be cost-effective at proposal. Based on the revised 
UPL analysis that considers the data available to the EPA regarding 
grid casting emissions and accounts for variability within the data, we 
have determined that the final standard of performance which reflects 
the BSER (use of a fabric filter system) is a lead emission limit of 
0.08 mg/dscm. We are also retaining the 0 percent opacity standard from 
40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for grid casting as proposed.
2. Revised NSPS for Lead Reclamation Facilities
    Similar to the standards for grid casting, the standards in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart KK, for lead reclamation, which were established in 
1982, are 4.5 mg/dscm for lead and 5 percent opacity and were based on 
impingement scrubbers with an estimated 90 percent lead emissions 
control efficiency. Through the BSER review conducted for the source 
category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 1982, it 
has become feasible and common for lead acid battery manufacturing 
plants to control lead emissions from several processes with fabric 
filters. Through this review, we discovered that no lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities currently conduct lead reclamation as the 
process is defined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. However, there was 
mention of lead reclamation equipment in the operating permits for two 
facilities, and that equipment is controlled with fabric filters. In 
the proposal, we estimated that fabric filters were capable of 
achieving lead emissions control efficiencies of at least 99 percent. 
Therefore, we concluded at proposal that fabric filters are feasible 
and an appropriate control technology for lead reclamation. Like in the 
analysis for grid casting, to assess whether fabric filters are the 
BSER for controlling lead emissions from lead reclamation, we examined 
the costs and emission reductions from installing and operating fabric 
filters at large and small facilities. In the proposal, we determined 
that the cost effectiveness of achieving a 99 percent reduction of lead 
through the use of fabric filters, as compared to the costs of 
achieving 90 percent reduction of lead through the use of wet 
scrubbers, would be $130,000 per ton of lead reduced for a large 
facility and $236,000 per ton of lead reduced for a small facility. We 
found that both of these values are within the range of what the EPA 
has considered in other rulemakings to be cost-effective for control of 
lead emissions. Based on this information, we proposed that fabric 
filters (with an estimated 99 percent control efficiency) represent the 
new BSER for lead reclamation, and we proposed to revise the lead 
emissions limit for lead reclamation to 0.45 mg/dscm to reflect the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
proposed BSER. We also proposed to retain in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
KKa, the opacity standard of 5 percent.
    In addition, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, a lead reclamation 
facility is defined as a facility that remelts lead scrap and casts it 
into ingots for use in the battery manufacturing process, and which is 
not an affected secondary lead smelting furnace under 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart L. To ensure that emissions are controlled from any lead that 
is recycled or reused, without being remelted and cast into ingots, the 
EPA proposed to revise the definition of ``lead reclamation facility'' 
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, to clarify that the lead reclamation 
facility subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, 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. Any facility recycling these materials through a melting 
process would be subject to another NSPS (i.e., Secondary Lead Smelting 
NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 subpart L, or the recently proposed new 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart La, once finalized).
    For the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa, we also proposed that the remelting of lead metal scrap is 
considered part of the process where the lead is remelted and used 
(e.g., grid casting). We also proposed 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 any lead acid battery manufacturing affected facility.
    We did not receive any comments on the proposed BSER or lead 
emission limit for lead reclamation and therefore are promulgating in 
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, a final standard of performance of 0.45 
mg/dscm, which reflects the final BSER for lead reclamation. We are 
also finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as proposed, the 
opacity standard of 5 percent and the requirement that a facility must 
use EPA Method 9 to demonstrate compliance with the daily and weekly 
visible emission observations for lead reclamation as well as during 
the performance tests required every 5 years.
3. Revised NSPS for Paste Mixing Facilities
    The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for paste mixing, 
which were established in 1982, are 1 mg/dscm for lead and 0 percent 
opacity and were based on fabric filters with an estimated 99 percent 
lead emissions control efficiency. Through the current BSER review 
conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation 
of the NSPS in 1982, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters 
capable of removing at least 99.97 percent of particles with a size of 
0.3 microns ([micro]m) have become readily available. Through this 
review, we also discovered that at least 16 of the 40 facilities 
currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are now using fabric 
filters with a HEPA filter as a secondary device to control lead 
emissions from paste mixing processes. Therefore, we concluded at 
proposal that fabric filters with secondary HEPA filters are clearly 
feasible and well demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for 
paste mixing operations. To assess whether fabric filters with 
secondary HEPA filters are the BSER for controlling lead emissions from 
paste mixing, we examined the estimated costs and emission reductions 
that would be achieved by installing and operating HEPA filters as 
secondary control devices to fabric filters at large facilities and 
small facilities. We estimated that the cost effectiveness of secondary 
HEPA filters achieving an additional 99.97 percent reduction of lead, 
as compared to the costs of a primary fabric filter system able to 
maintain the current limit of 1 mg/dscm (based on an estimated 99 
percent reduction of lead), would be $888,000 per ton of lead reduced 
for a large facility and $1.68 million per ton of lead reduced for a 
small facility. At proposal, we determined that the cost effectiveness 
estimate for large facilities is within the range of what the EPA has 
considered in other rulemakings to be cost-effective for control of 
lead emissions, while the estimate for small facilities is not within 
this range. Based on this information, we proposed that fabric filters 
with secondary HEPA filters with 99.97 percent control efficiency 
represent the new BSER for paste mixing at large facilities, and we 
proposed to revise the lead emissions limit for paste mixing at large 
facilities to 0.1 mg/dscm to reflect the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through

[[Page 11564]]

the application of the proposed BSER. For small facilities we proposed 
to retain in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, the standard of performance 
of 1 mg/dscm based on the application of fabric filters (with estimated 
99 percent control efficiency). We also proposed to retain the 0 
percent opacity standard from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for paste 
mixing facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa.
    We received three comments regarding the proposed revised emission 
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for large facilities and the proposal to retain 
the lead standard of 1.0 mg/dscm from 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, for 
small facilities. We did not receive any comments on the proposal to 
retain the opacity standard of 0 percent. The three commentors, 
including environmental groups, Clarios, and BCI, asked that the EPA 
reconsider allowing smaller pasting lines to emit significantly more 
lead than large pasting lines and asked that the EPA require all 
pasting lines to achieve the same stringent level of control.
    One commenter (Clarios) stated that the EPA did not evaluate the 
use of modern fabric filter materials in existing primary filter 
systems when it performed its analysis of control technologies, and 
asserted that, since all pasting lines already have primary fabric 
filter systems in place, there would essentially be no capital costs 
other than the cost for higher quality bags for both large and small 
existing facilities to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm (0.0000437 gr/dscf) limit 
for paste mixing that was proposed for large facilities. The commenter 
stated that modern filtration materials used in baghouses today, 
especially those coupled with engineered membranes, provide warranted 
removal efficiencies of 99.995% of lead at 1 micron. The commenter 
provided test results reported by one filter manufacturer to 
demonstrate this removal rate. The commenter also stated that it has 
found that modern primary filter substrates, such as expanded 
polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) lined polyester bags, achieve emission 
reductions equal to or greater than that of secondary filters, 
including those designated as high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 
filters. The commenter provided the results of 23 stack tests performed 
over 21 years for its one pasting line in the U.S., which is controlled 
by a primary dust collector using the ePTFE filters. The stack test 
results show that lead emissions are consistently below the proposed 
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm using this emission control configuration. The 
commenter stated that secondary systems, such as HEPA, are not needed 
to meet the proposed limit and will come at a much higher cost, but 
they may provide additional benefit as a control redundancy for 
facilities where multiple levels of protection are appropriate. The 
commenter provided example prices from a vendor of different types of 
filter bags, showing a range in price from $14.60 to $29.64 per bag. 
The commenter requested that the EPA consider the cost of facilities 
using primary systems alone, with modern fabric filters, as an 
effective method of controlling emissions at both small and large 
facilities.
    BCI stated that the proposal to distinguish between small and large 
facilities is problematic for several reasons. First, the commenter 
claims, there is insufficient guidance about how to calculate the plant 
capacity to process lead, which will lead to different interpretations 
by state enforcement agencies. The commenter adds that there is no 
rationale presented as to why the capacity of the plant, rather than 
the paste mixing operation, is the driver for varying emission limits 
for the paste mixing facility. According to the commenter, another 
problem is that plants near the capacity limit would be disincentivized 
to make capital improvements or consolidate operations if it would put 
them over the limit. The commenter also states that paste mixing 
sources have the highest moisture among the facility processes and 
often must be blended with other sources if they are to be controlled 
by a fabric filter. They stated that there are facilities that use wet 
scrubbers to control paste mixing that the EPA has not considered. The 
commenter says that a revised limit of 0.1 mg/dscm will also complicate 
testing and require more implementation of the rule provision that 
allows for the calculation of an equivalent standard for the total 
exhaust from commonly controlled affected facilities when two or more 
facilities at the same plant (except the lead oxide manufacturing 
facility) are ducted to a common control device). The commenter asserts 
that in view of these considerations, the EPA should abandon the two-
tier approach, and if it is intent on altering the emissions standards 
for paste mixing, the EPA should have a single standard that applies to 
all facilities that reasonably reflects the actual emissions reductions 
achieved using secondary HEPA.
    In reference to the proposed standard for small facilities, the 
environmental group commenters asserted that the EPA must eliminate 
what they refer to as emission control exemptions for small facilities 
and require all facilities to add secondary HEPA filters on the paste 
mixing process. Their comment states that the EPA's reliance on 
outdated information from the 1989 draft NSPS review to exempt 
facilities from pollution control is arbitrary and capricious. The 
comment adds that, because the EPA did not engage in new data 
collection efforts for this rulemaking, it is unclear whether the data 
used to determine whether a facility is ``small'' or ``large'' and the 
following control technology examples are outdated. The commenters 
remarked that the EPA's decision to aggregate the ``small'' and 
``medium'' sized facility categories included in the 1989 draft NSPS 
review into a single ``small'' facility category for this action 
without providing an explanation of the basis for this decision is 
arbitrary and capricious. The commenters also assert that, by combining 
small and medium facilities in one group, the EPA artificially reduced 
the incremental cost effectiveness of requiring this group of 
facilities to adopt secondary HEPA filter on the paste mixing process, 
thus arbitrarily exempting certain medium facilities from this 
requirement. The commenter adds that due to the harmfulness of lead at 
low exposure levels, the EPA should not use cost as the sole 
justification for not requiring additional health protections.
    We agree that modern filter media are capable of achieving 
emissions levels achieved by more traditional filter media with the 
addition of HEPA filters. Considering these comments, the EPA has re-
evaluated the BSER and the emissions limit for paste mixing. As 
discussed above, at proposal, we determined that many facilities are 
controlling emissions from paste mixing using HEPA filters, which 
reduce emissions much beyond the requirements of the current standards. 
However, at proposal we found that it was not cost-effective for all 
facilities to add HEPA filters, depending on their existing emissions 
and emissions controls in place. In an attempt to distinguish which 
facilities could apply this technology in a cost-effective manner, at 
proposal we divided the facilities into classes determined by the 
amount of lead processed daily at the facility. We then proposed that 
the use of HEPA filters represented the BSER for large facilities, 
while continuing to determine that the application of primary fabric 
filter systems represented BSER for small facilities. We did not 
propose any exemptions for small facilities as the commenter claimed.
    Based on the comments received, we have updated our analysis and 
our cost

[[Page 11565]]

estimates to reflect the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene 
(ePTFE) bags in a primary fabric filter system (i.e., baghouse) without 
the addition of a secondary filter. Details regarding the assumptions 
made in our cost estimates are in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available 
in the docket for this action. We estimate that the incremental initial 
(e.g., capital) costs for typical small facilities (those that process 
less than 150 tpd of lead) to replace their current standard polyester 
bags with ePTFE bags would be $18,000 per facility and the incremental 
annualized costs would be $9,000 per facility. For a large facility, 
the estimated incremental initial costs are $60,000 per facility and 
the incremental annualized costs are estimated to be $30,000 per 
facility. The estimated lead reductions are the same as those we found 
for the use of a secondary HEPA filter at proposal, at 0.1 tpy for a 
large source and 0.03 tpy for a small source, and therefore cost 
effectiveness for both a typical small and large facilities is $300,000 
per ton of lead reduced. This cost effectiveness is well within what 
the EPA had historically accepted in past rules addressing lead. As a 
commenter noted, a few facilities use wet scrubbers to control paste 
mixing emissions or they mix gas streams with the paste mixing 
emissions to control them with fabric filtration. If a new facility 
would choose to install a wet scrubber to control their paste mixing 
operation, there are models of wet scrubbers capable of achieving 99.9 
percent removal efficiency, and it has been shown to be feasible to add 
a secondary HEPA filter on a primary wet scrubber. In addition, wet 
scrubber technology to control paste mixing emissions has been 
adequately demonstrated to be capable of achieving the 0.1 mg/dscm 
emission limit, as discussed in section III.B.3.
    As discussed above, high efficiency filters such as ePTFE filters 
have been demonstrated and are a feasible control technology for paste 
mixing. In addition, the estimated cost effectiveness for both large 
and small facilities is within the range of values accepted previously 
by the EPA addressing lead. Furthermore, we have not identified any 
significant non-air environmental impacts and energy requirements. 
Therefore, the EPA has determined that ePTFE filters (or other 
effective control devices) that are capable of meeting a limit of 0.1 
mg/dscm represent the new BSER for most paste mixing facilities. One 
exception is for very small facilities with very low flow rates, which 
is described in more detail below.
    We used the UPL to assist in informing the appropriate lead 
emission limit for the paste mixing process based on the updated BSER 
of high efficiency bags (or other effective control devices) that are 
capable of meeting a limit of 0.1 mg/dscm (with estimated 99.995% 
efficiency). We calculated a 99 percent UPL using stack test data for 
units with only a fabric filter (i.e., no secondary filter) controlling 
emissions from paste mixing processes. We excluded stack tests for 
fabric filters controlling emissions from multiple processes. The EPA's 
methodology of the UPL for establishing the limits is reasonable and 
represents the average emissions achieved by sources with consideration 
of the variability in the emissions of those sources. The resulting UPL 
is 0.095 mg/dscm, which is very close to the proposed limit of 0.1 mg/
dscm and therefore provides further support that an emissions limit of 
0.1 mg/dscm is appropriate for most facilities. Details on the 
methodology used in determining the UPL for this process are found in 
the UPL Memorandum available in the docket for this action. Based on 
the limited stack test data and taking comments into consideration, we 
are promulgating in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, an emission limit of 
0.1 mg/dscm for paste mixing at all facilities (both large and small). 
In consideration of the comments provided on the proposed rule, as well 
as the information provided by the commenters and further investigation 
by the EPA, we have determined that secondary HEPA filters, although 
could be used to meet the proposed emission limit, are not necessary to 
meet an emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm for paste mixing for all 
facilities (both large and small). As required by CAA section 111, the 
EPA prescribes requisite emission limitations that apply to the 
affected facilities rather than specific technologies that must be 
used. Facilities will have the option to meet the limit in any manner 
they choose, including the use of modern primary filter media in a 
primary filter system or application of a secondary filter. Given that 
our analyses indicate that the proposed emission level can be achieved 
at lower costs than we estimated at proposal for all paste mixing 
facilities, we are promulgating a requirement that paste mixing 
operations, regardless of daily lead throughput, comply with a limit of 
0.1 mg/dscm.
    However, in our analysis of existing facilities (as discussed in 
section III.B.3 below), we found that it may be particularly costly for 
very small facilities with very low flow rates and already low lead 
emissions to comply with the revised concentration-based emission limit 
of 0.1 mg/dscm. For example, we know of one very small facility that, 
based on its most recent stack tests, emits an estimated 4 lbs/year 
(0.002 tpy) of lead from its paste mixing operations using standard 
fabric filters. However, based on the available data, that facility had 
one test result (0.11 mg/dscm) indicating it may not be able to comply 
with a 0.1 mg/dscm limit without improving the control device (a fabric 
filter). In our assessment, we assume this facility would have to 
replace its current filters with high efficiency filters in order to 
meet the 0.1 mg/dscm limit. We estimate annualized costs would be 
approximately $9,000 and would achieve 0.0019 tpy (3.7 lbs) of lead 
reductions, for a cost effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This is considerably 
higher than cost effectiveness values we have historically accepted for 
lead. Similarly, as discussed at proposal, the use of secondary filters 
is also not cost-effective for these very small facilities. 
Accordingly, the EPA has determined that the BSER for these facilities 
continues to be the use of a standard fabric filter.
    Based on available information, these very small facilities with 
already low lead emissions typically have very low flow rates, and 
therefore meeting a concentration-based limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is not 
cost-effective even though their emissions rate of lead (e.g., in lbs/
hr) is quite low. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating an 
alternative, mass-per-time based lead emissions limit of 0.002 lbs/hr, 
which is the rate that the EPA has determined is achievable from the 
use of a standard fabric filter at these types of very small 
facilities, for total paste mixing operations. By total paste mixing 
operations, we mean that in order to meet this alternative limit a 
facility must show compliance by summing emissions from each stack that 
emits lead from paste mixing operations. More information on the data 
used in our analysis is detailed in the memorandum Revised Emission 
Limits for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Final Rule-Grid Casting 
and Paste Mixing Operations, available in the docket for this action. 
This alternative lead emission limit only applies to devices 
controlling paste mixing emissions and may not apply to a control 
device with multiple gas streams from other processes. Therefore, lead 
acid battery manufacturing facilities can demonstrate compliance with 
the paste mixing standards by

[[Page 11566]]

either meeting a concentration-based limit of 0.1 mg/dscm from all 
paste mixing emissions sources at that facility, or demonstrate that 
the total lead emissions from all paste mixing operations at that 
facility are less than 0.002 lbs/hr. This alternative mass-rate-based 
emission limit of 0.002 lb/hour will provide additional compliance 
flexibility for very small facilities with low emissions and low flow 
rates to comply with the paste mixing emissions standards.
    We anticipate that the vast majority of facilities will choose to 
comply with the 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit because the alternative 
limit is a paste mixing facility-wide emission limit and would likely 
be difficult to meet for stacks with higher flow rates. We further 
anticipate that only very small facilities with very low-flow rates 
(and already low emissions) will choose to comply by demonstrating 
compliance with the alternative emission limit because larger 
facilities with higher flow rates would likely need additional controls 
to comply with this alternative limit. We determined that the 
alternative limit of 0.002 lbs/hr is cost-effective for these very 
small facilities with low flow rates. Therefore, for very small 
facilities with very low flow rates and already low emissions we have 
determined that the BSER is a standard fabric filter, and 0.002 lbs/
hour is the emission level achievable for these types of facilities 
reflecting the BSER. We are also finalizing, as proposed, the opacity 
limit of 0 percent for paste mixing operations.
4. Revised NSPS for Fugitive Dust Emissions
    The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, do not include 
requirements to reduce or minimize fugitive lead dust emissions. These 
fugitive dust emissions would include particulate lead that becomes 
airborne and is deposited to outdoor surfaces at or near the facilities 
and that may become airborne again via wind or surface disturbance 
activities, such as vehicle traffic. Through the BSER review conducted 
for the source category, we found that since the promulgation of the 
NSPS in 1982, other rules, including the NESHAPs for primary lead 
smelting and secondary lead smelting, have required new and existing 
sources to minimize fugitive dust emissions at regulated facilities 
through the paving of roadways, cleaning roadways, storing lead oxide 
and other lead bearing materials in enclosed spaces or containers, and 
other measures. Through this review, we also discovered that several 
facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, have 
requirements to reduce fugitive dust emissions through similar, 
specific work practices in their operating permits. Because these 
fugitive lead dust emissions from the lead acid battery manufacturing 
source category emissions are not ``emitted through a conveyance 
designed to emit or capture the pollutant,'' pursuant to CAA section 
111(h), we considered whether a work practice requirement to develop 
and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan, including certain 
elements, would be appropriate for the lead acid battery manufacturing 
source category. Such elements could include 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 estimated at proposal that the cost burden associated with a 
requirement to develop and implement a fugitive dust plan, including 
the elements described above, would be $13,000 per facility per year 
and would prevent significant releases of fugitive dust emissions. 
Based on our review of permit requirements, the requirements of other 
regulations for lead emissions, and the estimated costs of a fugitive 
dust minimization program, we proposed to include a new requirement for 
lead acid battery manufacturing facilities to develop and implement a 
fugitive dust minimization plan that included, at a minimum, the 
elements listed above.
    We received three comments regarding the proposed fugitive dust 
minimization work practice standard. Environmental groups generally 
supported the proposal, but they commented that the EPA must require 
the use of fenceline monitoring and corrective action tied to that 
monitoring as well as full enclosure negative pressure requirements. We 
disagree that the use of fenceline monitoring and corrective action 
tied to that monitoring is an appropriate work practice standard for 
this source category. The EPA's response to these comments is in the 
Comment Summary and Response Document, available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    One commenter (Clarios) stated that the EPA included several 
undefined terms and concepts for its proposed fugitive dust 
minimization plan that introduce uncertainty and the potential for 
misinterpretation. The commenter recommends that the EPA adopt 
definitions and parameters similar in approach to those included in the 
fugitive dust plan requirements for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP. 
The commenter notes that such definitions and parameters should be 
designed to address the configuration of battery manufacturing 
facilities, which may have multiple process lines with different 
controls and control systems. The commenter mentions that there are 
areas of the plants that are lead-free production zones, where lead is 
not used or handled, and these areas should not be included in the 
scope of a fugitive dust minimization plan. The commenter adds that 
including lead-free areas in a fugitive dust minimization plan would 
add to the costs of implementing the plan, such that costs are likely 
to exceed $200,000 per plant in the first year alone. The commenter 
remarks that in plants where negative air pressure is used as an 
emissions control, the air systems are designed and balanced to protect 
lead-free areas and isolate areas where negative pressure is used. The 
commenter also cautions that adding negative pressure or fugitive dust 
control in lead-free areas may thwart the design and operation of 
existing process emission control equipment by changing air balances 
and flows. The commenter suggests that lead-free process areas (i.e., 
areas where fugitive lead dust is controlled to concentrations less 
than the controlled emission limits in Table 1 of the proposed 
revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP) should be excluded from 
the requirements of the fugitive emission work practices requirements 
in the NSPS and NESHAP.
    BCI also commented on the EPA's proposed cost estimates stating 
that they cannot be fully estimated because the EPA is proposing 
minimum requirements that must be reviewed and approved by ``the 
Administrator or delegated authority.'' They provided estimates for the 
basic requirements and claim that costs for developing the fugitive 
dust plan would be between $25,000 and $35,000 per facility and 
estimate $250,000 per facility to implement the plan. They also claim 
the EPA's proposal is arbitrary and capricious because the proposal did 
not estimate expected emissions reductions that will result from the 
fugitive emissions work practices it is proposing.
    We do not agree with the commenter (BCI) that our proposal to 
require fugitive dust minimization work practices is arbitrary and 
capricious. For this rule, we learned through discussions with states, 
regions, and industry that there is a potential for

[[Page 11567]]

fugitive dust emissions from this source category. In addition, during 
the technology review it was found that nine states have fugitive dust 
minimization requirements in the permits for 15 different lead acid 
battery facilities. Furthermore, based on the modeling screening 
analysis completed and described in the proposal, in comparing modeled 
concentrations at monitor locations to ambient lead measurements at 
monitors, emissions from a subset of facilities were underestimated. 
The memorandum, Assessment of Potential Health Impacts of Lead 
Emissions in Support of the 2022 Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 
Technology Review of Area Sources Proposed Rule, available in the 
docket for this action, discusses that un-reported fugitive emissions 
and re-entrainment of historical lead dust are two factors, among 
others, at lead acid battery facilities that may cause the model to 
underpredict when compared to the ambient lead measurement. Generally, 
it is difficult to quantify emissions from fugitive dust emission 
sources because they are not released at a common point, such as a 
stack and therefore they cannot easily be measured. However, for the 
reasons discussed above, we have determined work practice standards to 
minimize fugitive dust emissions at lead acid battery manufacturing 
facilities are appropriate to address an important source of lead 
pollution.
    In consideration of the other comments, we have reviewed the 
regulatory language and agree with the commenters (BCI and Clarios) 
that further explanation should be provided to clarify the areas that 
are required to be included in the fugitive dust minimization plan. As 
it was our intent at proposal to include only the areas of the 
facilities that were most likely to have fugitive dust that would 
contribute to lead emissions from the facility, we reviewed information 
on the facilities, their processes, and facility configurations to 
determine the likely areas where such fugitive dust emissions would 
occur. Processes such as grid casting, paste mixing operations, and 
three-process operations (as described above in section II.C) are 
enclosed. In order to maintain Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) requirements for ambient lead concentrations 
inside a facility and worker safety, fugitive emissions are already 
controlled at lead acid battery manufacturing facilities in these 
process areas. In addition, we are finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa, an opacity limit of 0 percent which minimizes fugitive 
emissions from the primary processes (grid casting, paste mixing, 
three-process operations and other-lead emitting sources) as proposed. 
Available information, including information provided by Clarios, 
indicates that the area at a lead acid battery manufacturing facility 
with the highest potential for fugitive lead dust emissions is the lead 
oxide unloading and storage operations area. When lead oxide is 
purchased from a third party, it is transported by truck and conveyed 
by pipe directly into storage silos. As stated in the memorandum 
Estimating and Controlling Fugitive Lead Emissions from Industrial 
Sources (EPA-452/R-96-006), on rare occasions, these pipe connections 
may fail which results in a release of lead oxide. From this review and 
from discussion of the matter with the commenter, we determined that 
lead oxide loading and unloading areas (including lead oxide storage 
operations) are the areas at a facility where such fugitive dust 
emissions would most likely occur. Therefore, we have revised the 
regulatory language to specify that facilities must develop and operate 
according to a fugitive dust minimization plan that applies to lead 
oxide unloading areas and the storage of dust-forming materials 
containing lead.
    We agree with the commenters regarding the costs to develop and 
implement a fugitive dust minimization plan for all process areas. 
Thus, taking the comments into consideration and appropriately 
narrowing the areas where fugitive dust minimization work practices are 
required, we re-evaluated the costs of developing and implementing a 
fugitive dust minimization plan in the lead oxide unloading and storage 
areas only. We estimate the initial costs to develop a fugitive dust 
minimization plan are $7,900 per facility. We estimate that the costs 
to implement the fugitive dust plan in the lead oxide unloading area 
includes the purchase of a ride-on HEPA vacuum and a portable HEPA 
vacuum, as well as the labor costs for performing the required cleaning 
tasks. We estimate the total costs for new sources to develop and 
implement a fugitive dust plan for the lead oxide unloading and storage 
area will be $22,000 during the year the facility develops the plan. 
Then, once the plan has been developed, the estimated annualized cost 
to implement the plan is approximately $14,000 per facility per year. 
The total costs are slightly higher than at proposal because, based on 
discussions with the commenter, we added additional costs for 
managerial oversight of the fugitive dust minimization plan and its 
implementation. But the costs of fugitive dust minimization work 
practices are less than 1 percent of each facility's annual revenues 
and are considered to be reasonable.
    The final BSER for minimizing fugitive dust emissions is lead dust 
minimizing work practices in the lead oxide unloading and storage area. 
The work practices include cleaning or treating surfaces traversed 
during vehicular lead oxide transfer activity at least monthly; storing 
dust-forming material in enclosures; and examining process areas daily 
for accumulating lead-containing dusts and wash and/or vacuum the 
surfaces accumulating such dust with a HEPA vacuum device/system. The 
work practices also include a requirement that if an accidental leak, 
spill or breakage occurs during the unloading process, the area needs 
to be washed and/or vacuumed immediately to collect all the spilled or 
leaked material. As stated above, pursuant to CAA section 111(h), these 
fugitive lead dust emissions from the lead acid battery manufacturing 
source category emissions are not ``emitted through a conveyance 
designed to emit or capture the pollutant.'' Therefore, since it is not 
possible to set a numerical emission limit, we are finalizing a work 
practice standard to develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization 
plan.
5. NSPS 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa, Without Startup, Shutdown, and 
Malfunctions Exemptions
    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. 
We are finalizing in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, specific requirements 
at 40 CFR 60.372a(a) that override the 40 CFR part 60 general 
provisions for SSM requirements. In finalizing the standards in this 
rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, 
for the reasons explained below, has not finalized alternate standards 
for those periods. The main control devices used in this industry are 
fabric filters. We have determined that these control devices are 
effective in controlling emissions during startup and shutdown events. 
Prior to proposal, we discussed this issue with industry 
representatives and asked them if they expect any problems with meeting 
the standards at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown. 
The lead acid battery manufacturing industry did not identify (and 
there are no data or public comments indicating) any specific problems 
with meeting the standards at

[[Page 11568]]

all times including periods of startup or shutdown.
    In addition, this final action requires compliance with the 
standards at all times including periods of malfunction. 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 CAA 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 the EPA to consider such events in setting 
CAA section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to 
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable'' 
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the 
court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
    The regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, only include a 
requirement to conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate 
compliance with the emissions standards for each type of equipment at 
lead acid battery manufacturing plants. Through the BSER review 
conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation 
of the NSPS in 1982, the EPA has proposed and promulgated periodic 
performance testing in other recent rulemakings. Through this review, 
we also discovered that almost half of the 40-lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
KK, are required by state and local agencies to conduct periodic 
performance tests on a schedule that varies from annually to once every 
5 years. Therefore, we determined at proposal that periodic performance 
testing is a development in operational procedures that will help 
ensure continued compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa. At proposal, we determined that the incremental costs of 
requiring performance tests of lead emissions on this 5-year schedule 
would be approximately $23,000 to test one stack and an additional 
$5,500 for each additional stack testing during the same testing event. 
We also determined that to minimize these costs, it would be possible, 
as allowed for in some other EPA NESHAP regulations with periodic 
testing requirements, that in some instances where a facility has more 
than one stack that exhausts emissions from similar equipment and with 
similar control devices, one representative stack could be tested to 
demonstrate compliance with the similar stacks. For this, a stack 
testing plan demonstrating stack representativeness and a testing 
schedule would be required for approval by the EPA or the delegated 
authority. Based on the costs and the importance of periodic testing to 
ensure continuous compliance, we proposed to require periodic testing 
for each emissions source once every 5 years, with the ability for 
facilities to test representative stacks if a stack testing plan and 
schedule is approved by the EPA or delegated authority.
    We received three comments on this proposal, which did not cause 
the Agency to change course from what was proposed. We respond fully to 
these comments in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    As explained in the Comment Summary and Response Document, after 
considering these comments, the Agency is finalizing the additional 
performance testing as proposed. Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa, will be required to test stacks and/or representative 
stacks every 5 years.
b. Fabric Filter and Scrubber Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping 
Requirements That Are Consistent With the Requirements in 40 CFR Part 
63, Subpart PPPPPP
    We proposed to add monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements associated with the use of fabric filters to the new NSPS, 
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, consistent with the area source GACT 
requirements in the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP at 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart PPPPPP. This was proposed because many of the lead 
acid battery manufacturing facilities use fabric filter controls, and 
the 1982 NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, does not include compliance 
requirements for these devices. We also proposed to add an additional 
requirement to monitor and record liquid flow rate across each 
scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. The regulations in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart KK, only require monitoring and recording pressure 
drop across the scrubber system every 15 minutes. We received no 
comments on this issue. Therefore, we are promulgating what was 
proposed as the final compliance assurance measures.
    We expect that there would be no costs associated with the 
requirement for new, modified, and reconstructed sources to monitor and 
record liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system at least once 
every 15 minutes because this is standard monitoring equipment in 
scrubbing systems.
    In addition, to reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that result 
in excess lead emissions, the EPA also proposed to increase the 
frequency of fabric filter inspections and maintenance operations to 
monthly for units that do not have a secondary filter, and to retain 
the requirement for semi-annual inspections for units that do have a 
secondary filter. We received one public comment from environmental 
groups in support of additional inspections and one comment from 
Clarios against monthly inspections. More details on these comments and 
our responses are in the Comment Summary and Response Document 
available in the docket for this action. After consideration of public 
comments on this issue, we are finalizing increased fabric filter 
inspections to quarterly for all fabric filter systems (both primary 
and secondary). We expect that there would be no additional costs to 
add fabric filter monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
that are consistent with the NESHAP beyond what is discussed in section 
III.A.6.c for bag leak detection requirements and section III.B.6.b for 
additional fabric filter inspections.
c. Bag Leak Detection Systems
    The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, do not include 
requirements to install or operate bag leak detection systems. These 
systems typically include an instrument that is capable of monitoring 
particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag 
failures (e.g., tears) and an alarm to alert an operator of the 
failure.

[[Page 11569]]

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. Through the BSER review conducted for the 
source category, we found that since the promulgation of the NSPS in 
1982, other rules, including the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Y, Coal 
Preparation and Processing Plants NSPS (74 FR 51950), and 40 CFR part 
60, subparts LLLL and MMMM, New Sewage Sludge Incinerator Units NSPS 
(81 FR 26039), have required new sources to have bag leak detection 
systems for fabric filter-controlled units. Through this review, we 
also discovered that at least eight facilities currently subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart KK, have bag leak detection systems. Therefore, we 
determined at proposal that the use of bag leak detection systems is a 
development in operational procedures that will help ensure continued 
compliance with the NSPS by identifying and allowing for correction of 
bag leak failures earlier than would occur through daily visual 
emissions inspections or pressure drop monitoring. We considered 
whether a requirement to install and operate a bag leak detection 
system would be appropriate for the lead acid battery manufacturing 
source category. We examined the costs of installing and operating bag 
leak detection systems at large and small facilities and estimated that 
the capital costs of a system at a new facility would be approximately 
$400,000 for a large facility and $200,000 for a small facility, with 
annual costs of approximately $84,000 for a large facility and $42,000 
for a small facility. We found that the costs for small facilities 
could impose significant negative economic impacts to those companies. 
Based on this information, to help ensure continuous compliance with 
the emission limits without imposing significant economic impacts on 
small facilities, we proposed to require bag leak detection systems 
only for large facilities.
    We received comments from environmental groups on this proposed 
requirement. They are generally supportive of requiring bag leak 
detection systems but ask that we also require small facilities to 
install bag leak detection systems. The commenter asserted that the EPA 
arbitrarily exempted small facilities from the bag leak detection 
system requirements because an analysis of cost effectiveness was not 
performed, and the EPA's finding that bag leak detection systems are 
not cost efficient for ``small'' facilities is unsupported by facts in 
the record. The commenter adds that due to the harmfulness of lead at 
low exposure levels, the EPA should not use cost as the sole 
justification for not requiring additional health protections. We also 
received a comment from BCI regarding the cost estimates used in the 
proposal claiming that they are outdated and underestimated, but BCI 
did not provide any data to support this claim. We conducted additional 
research on the costs of bag leak detection, and we did not find 
evidence that our estimates at proposal are outside the range of 
expected values. We therefore have not revised our estimated costs for 
bag leak detection except to update the value of inflation. We have, 
however, as discussed below, reconsidered the proposal to require bag 
leak detection at only large new, modified and reconstructed sources.
    Based on consideration of comments, we are finalizing a requirement 
that new sources of all sizes under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, that 
do not have a secondary filter must install and operate bag leak 
detection systems on baghouses. While the cost of bag leak detection 
systems can be substantial for existing facilities, it is easier and 
less expensive for a new facility to incorporate bag leak detection in 
their construction design than it is for a facility to retrofit their 
current devices. Therefore, for new sources, we consider the cost of 
bag leak detection reasonable. For modified and reconstructed sources, 
we are adding the use of bag leak detection systems as an option and 
provide operating limits and monitoring parameters as well as 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for facilities that choose to 
install bag leak detection, but we are not requiring these systems for 
modified or reconstructed facilities. As discussed in the proposal, the 
costs of retrofitting an existing facility with bag leak detection on 
baghouses with no secondary filter could be especially burdensome for 
smaller facilities and could impose significant economic impacts 
(greater than 1 percent of their annual revenues) on some of those 
companies. We estimate the capital costs for a facility with four 
fabric filter systems are $281,000 and annual costs are $56,000 per 
year. We estimate that capital costs for a facility with 12 fabric 
filter systems are $842,000 and annual costs are $169,000 per year. 
While considering the number of fabric filter systems at existing 
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, are as high as 100 
fabric filter systems, and after further consideration of the costs and 
taking comments into consideration, we conclude that the cost to 
retrofit existing lead acid battery manufacturing sources, both large 
and small facilities, with bag leak detection would be burdensome. 
Therefore, we are not requiring bag leak detection systems for existing 
sources that modify or reconstruct.
    After consideration of comments on bag leak detection, because we 
have determined not to require existing sources that may modify or 
reconstruct to install bag leak detection, we have also examined the 
other fabric filter monitoring requirements. As proposed, new, modified 
and reconstructed sources under 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, must 
follow the other fabric filter monitoring requirements which include 
pressure drop recording, visible emission observations and inspections. 
We are finalizing an increased frequency of fabric filter inspections 
as discussed in section III.A.6.b. In addition, as an outgrowth of 
comments, we are finalizing an increase in fabric filter monitoring 
requirements (i.e., pressure drop and visible emissions readings) from 
once per day to twice per day for fabric filters without a secondary 
filter. Specifically, we are promulgating a requirement that for fabric 
filters without a secondary filter, facility operators must do one of 
the following measurements daily if the results of the most recent 
performance test is greater than 50 percent of the applicable lead 
emission limit: (1) record pressure drop two times per day with a 
minimum of 8 hours between the recordings; or (2) conduct visible 
emission observations two times per day with a minimum of 6 hours 
between observations. For fabric filters without a secondary filter 
that have performance test results less than 50 percent of the 
applicable emissions limit, we are maintaining the requirement that 
facilities must do one of the following: (1) record pressure drop at 
least one time per day; or (2) conduct visible emission observations at 
least one time per day. We are also retaining as proposed the 
requirement for fabric filter systems with a secondary filter to record 
pressure drop weekly and conduct weekly visible emission observations. 
The costs for the additional pressure drop recording requirement for 
new, modified and reconstructed sources under the new NSPS subpart are 
the same as estimates for the NESHAP and are discussed in section 
III.B.6.c.

[[Page 11570]]

7. Other Actions
a. Clarification of Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission Limit
    We proposed to retain the lead oxide manufacturing emission limit. 
However, we received two comments asking the EPA to address apparent 
issues with the emission limit. As discussed below, we are modifying 
the proposal after taking the comments summarized here into 
consideration. One commenter (Clarios) noted that the lead oxide 
production process emission limits in both the NSPS and NESHAP are 
production based, while all the other lead acid battery production 
process emission limits are concentration based. The commenter opined 
that the EPA set the production-based limit for lead oxide production 
because only one production-based data point was available when the 
NSPS was developed in 1982. The commenter suggested that the limit be 
changed to a concentration-based limit to match the format of the other 
battery production process limits. The commenter stated that this would 
allow facilities more flexibility to apply control strategies in a 
cost-effective manner by being better able to plan and coordinate their 
operations, especially in multi-process facilities; simplify the 
environmental management process; and allow for better operational 
options. The commenter provided summaries of emissions testing data for 
three of its facilities, which the commenter says demonstrate that 
dramatically lower emissions levels than the current production-based 
emission limit are achievable with commonly available filter 
technologies. The commenter noted that each facility for which data 
were provided controls emissions by way of a process dust collector 
equipped with primary filters and a secondary bank of filters to 
provide system redundancy. The commenter hopes that by providing this 
information, the EPA can consider the level of control that is 
available today with modern lead oxide production facilities and use 
this information to evaluate an appropriate emission limit for lead 
oxide production processes and transition to a concentration-based 
limit.
    Another commenter (BCI) requests that the EPA clarify that the lead 
oxide production facility 5.0 mg/kg production-based standard should be 
applied only to the direct product collector baghouses and that any 
other local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts 
serving lead oxide production areas should be considered ``other lead-
emitting operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm concentration-based 
standards. The commenter suggests the EPA could clarify this in the 
preamble to the final rule or revise the definition of ``lead oxide 
manufacturing facility'' to apply only to the direct process baghouse 
exhausts. The commenter explained that at the time of the original 
promulgation of the NSPS in the 1980s, it was typical that the only 
ventilation and emission points from lead oxide production operations 
was the exhaust from the lead oxide production baghouses. The commenter 
further explained that these baghouses are integral to the process, in 
that the lead oxide captured in these baghouses is the intended product 
of that operation and are part of the production process rather than 
being systems intended to reduce indoor lead exposures and minimize 
exterior emissions. The commenter adds that as such, it was reasonable 
that the performance limitation on the direct process baghouse exhausts 
in lead oxide production areas were expressed in units of mg/kg or lb/
ton. However, the commenter notes that since the 1980's, it has become 
increasingly common for facilities to have installed local exhaust 
ventilation hooding on some material transfer points and other sources 
in the lead oxide production areas and may also now direct room air 
from lead oxide production areas to baghouses for exhaust control. The 
commenter states that these emission sources should not be assessed 
with or against the 5.0 mg/kg standard for the direct process baghouse 
exhausts.
    We agree with the commenter that the lead oxide manufacturing 
emissions limit was intended to apply only to the primary emissions 
sources and their emission control devices (i.e., lead oxide production 
fabric filter baghouses). In the final rule, we are clarifying that the 
lead oxide manufacturing facility limit only applies to the primary 
emissions sources, and that other sources associated with the lead 
oxide production sources, such as building ventilation, would be 
``other lead emitting operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm emission 
limit. We also agree with the comment that the lead oxide production 
process emissions limit was developed as a production-based limit 
because only one production-based data point was available when the 
NSPS was developed. However, a new limit was not proposed and the 
process-based emission standard accounts for variability with 
production rate and flow rate. It is difficult to establish an 
equivalent concentration-based limit, due to the variability in process 
conditions, such as production volume and flow rate, that must be 
considered on an individual unit basis. Therefore, as facilities are 
already familiar with how to comply with the production-based limit, we 
are retaining the current production-based limit.
b. Electronic Reporting
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and 
operators of lead acid battery manufacturing subject to the new 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). We did not receive any 
comments regarding these requirements. 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 final 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 \3\ 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 that other performance test 
results be submitted in portable document format using the attachment 
module in the ERT. For the semiannual excess emissions and continuous 
monitoring system performance and summary reports, the final rule 
requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet 
template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version of the 
template for these reports will be located on the CEDRI website.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, provisions that 
allow owners and operators the ability to seek extensions for 
submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of 
the facility, i.e., for a possible outage in CDX or CEDRI or for a 
force majeure event, in the time just prior to a report's due date, as 
well as the process to assert such a claim.

[[Page 11571]]

B. NESHAP

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the Comment Summary 
and Response Document available in the docket.
1. Technology Review for Grid Casting Facilities
    As discussed in section III.A.1 above, the emission limit 
promulgated in the 1982 NSPS was 0.4 mg/dscm and the opacity standard 
finalized was 0 percent and these standards were based on an 
impingement scrubber (with an estimated 90 percent control efficiency). 
In the 2007 NESHAP final rule, the EPA adopted that same limit (0.4 mg/
dscm based on impingent scrubbers) as the limit for grid casting in the 
NESHAP, and also adopted the 0 percent opacity standard. Based on our 
technology review, the majority of existing area source facilities (at 
least 29 of the 39 facilities subject to the NESHAP) use fabric 
filters. At the time of proposal, we were missing permits for three 
facilities; one in California, one in Indiana, and one in Tennessee, 
and did not have enough information for the other seven facilities. 
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. Based on our review of permits 
and other information, we assumed all existing facilities use fabric 
filters to control their grid casting emissions. Therefore, we 
concluded that fabric filters are clearly feasible and well 
demonstrated as an appropriate control technology for grid casting 
operations. Based on our technology review pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6), we proposed a lead emission limit of 0.04 mg/dscm that was 
thought to reflect the use of a fabric filter system with an estimated 
99 percent efficiency.
    We received one comment against the proposed amendment to the grid 
casting emission limit, which is summarized above in section III.A.1. 
The commenters did not comment on the EPA's assumption that no existing 
facilities are using only a wet scrubber to control grid casting 
emissions. Based on the comment regarding fabric filter efficiencies, 
we analyzed stack test data and calculated a UPL as described in 
section III.A.1 above. Based on this additional analysis, we are 
promulgating a revised lead emission limit of 0.08 mg/dscm for grid 
casting which reflects the use of a fabric filter to control emissions. 
Based on our technology review and information obtained since the 
proposal, we can now state that 36 of 39 facilities currently subject 
to the NESHAP use fabric filters to control their grid casting 
emissions. Although, we are missing three permits, since we did not 
receive comment on our assumption that all existing facilities use 
fabric filters for grid casting, we estimate that all existing sources 
are currently using fabric filters to control their grid casting 
emissions. Therefore, there will be no additional costs to existing 
sources to comply with the revised limit. We are retaining the 0 
percent opacity standard for grid casting as proposed.
2. Technology Review for Lead Reclamation Facilities
    We did not find any facilities currently conducting lead 
reclamation operations as they are defined in the NESHAP during our 
technology review. In the NESHAP, lead reclamation facilities are 
defined as facilities that remelt lead and reform it into ingots, and 
as discussed above in section III.A.2, we identified two facilities 
with lead reclamation equipment in their permit, and that equipment is 
controlled by fabric filters. Although, it is unclear from the permit 
if the two facilities are using this equipment to remelt lead and form 
it into ingots as the definition in the NESHAP specifies. We concluded 
in the technology review that fabric filters represented a development 
in technology since the 2007 NESHAP and therefore, we proposed to 
revise the lead emission limit of 4.5 mg/dscm (which was developed in 
1980 based on a scrubber with estimated 90 percent efficiency and 
adopted by the NESHAP in 2007) to 0.45 mg/dscm (based on application of 
fabric filters) for lead reclamation operations at lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities. We also proposed to retain the 5 percent 
opacity standard. The EPA received no comments on the proposed emission 
limit or opacity standard for lead reclamation process in this 
rulemaking. For these reasons, the EPA is promulgating a revised lead 
emission limit of 0.45 mg/dscm for the lead reclamation process in the 
NESHAP. We are also retaining the opacity standard of 5 percent and we 
retain that a facility must use EPA Method 9 to demonstrate compliance 
with the daily and weekly visible emission observations as well as 
during the performance tests required every 5 years as proposed.
    As discussed above in section III.A.7.a, we are also finalizing, as 
proposed, to revise 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 operations, and 
these activities are prohibited. We are also finalizing, as proposed, 
to clarify that lead reclamation facilities also do not include the 
remelting of lead 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 
lead is remelted and used (i.e., grid casting).
3. Technology Review for Paste Mixing Facilities
    During the technology review, we identified 15 paste mixing 
facilities subject to the NESHAP (38 percent of the total) that 
currently have secondary filters to achieve much higher control 
efficiency on their paste mixing operations. As discussed in section 
III.A.3 above, the results of the cost analyses at proposal for 
existing large facilities indicated that the estimated cost 
effectiveness of adding a secondary HEPA filter on the paste mixing 
process was within the range of what the EPA has considered to be a 
cost-effective level of control for lead emissions, but it was not 
cost-effective for existing small facilities to add secondary HEPA 
filters to their paste mixing processes. Therefore, we proposed that 
large sources would need to comply with a revised paste mixing emission 
limit of 0.1 mg/dscm, and we proposed to retain the standard of 1 mg/
dscm for small sources.
    Based on the comments we received after proposal regarding the use 
of high efficiency filters, as discussed in section III.A.3 above, we 
have conducted further analysis for existing facilities, and we agree 
with the commenter that ePTFE (high efficiency) filters can be used to 
achieve the revised paste mixing emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. We 
estimate that 24 (out of 39 existing facilities that have paste mixing 
operations) can comply with the proposed 0.1 mg/dscm emission limit 
because they already use secondary HEPA filters or have stack tests/
permit limits that indicate they could comply with the emission limit 
of 0.1 mg/dscm. Further, as the available information shows that paste 
mixing operations are already controlled by fabric filters at

[[Page 11572]]

most facilities, it is possible that instead of adding HEPA filters, 
most facilities could switch from traditional filter materials to more 
modern higher efficiency filter materials and achieve the same 
emissions levels as those achieved by a secondary filter at a lower 
cost. However, as a commenter noted, as discussed in section III.A.3, 
some facilities use wet scrubbers to control paste mixing emissions. We 
are aware of five existing facilities that use wet scrubbers to control 
their paste mixing operations. Three of these facilities currently have 
secondary HEPA filters following their scrubbers. Based on the data 
available to the EPA at the time of this rulemaking, four of the five 
facilities using scrubbers to control paste mixing operations can 
comply with the revised emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm. One of these 
five facilities has three wet scrubbers to control paste mixing. Based 
on stack test data we obtained from the state agency, we estimate that 
this facility might need to add a secondary HEPA filter on one of these 
devices, which will result in slightly higher costs for this one 
facility. We conservatively estimate that the remaining 14 facilities 
will need to upgrade their bags to comply with the revised emission 
limit. The incremental initial costs to replace current bags at these 
facilities with the high efficiency PTFE bags ranges from $6,000 to 
$36,000 per facility, and the incremental annualized costs range from 
$3,000 to $18,000 per facility per year. We estimate that a typical 
large facility would have annual costs of about $30,000 per year and 
achieve about 0.1 tpy reduction of lead emissions with estimated cost 
effectiveness of $300,000 per ton and that a typical small facility 
would have annual costs of about $18,000 per year and achieve about 
0.03 tpy reduction of lead emissions, with estimated cost effectiveness 
of $300,000 per ton, which is well within the range of cost 
effectiveness that the EPA has historically accepted. Therefore, we 
conclude that for most facilities, this limit of 0.1 mg/dscm is cost-
effective.
    However, based on available information, for at least one very 
small facility with already very low paste mixing emissions, replacing 
current bags with ePTFE bags would not be cost-effective. We estimate 
that to meet the 0.1 mg/dscm lead emission limit, its initial costs 
would be $18,000 and its incremental annualized costs would be $9,000, 
and would achieve a 0.002 tpy lead reduction with estimated cost 
effectiveness of $4.7M/ton. This estimated cost effectiveness (for a 
very small facility with very low emissions) of $4.7M/ton is higher 
than what the EPA has historically accepted as cost-effective. 
Therefore, because we estimate it is cost-effective for all other 
existing facilities except for one, in order to ensure that emission 
reductions can be achieved in a cost-effective manner for the source 
category, we are also promulgating an alternative lead emission limit 
of 0.002 lb/hour as described in section III.A.3. This alternative 
emission limit of 0.002 lbs/hr is more stringent than the 0.1 mg/dscm 
for most facilities, and is significantly more stringent than the 
proposed emission limit of 1 mg/dscm for very small facilities with 
very low flow rates and will ensure emissions are limited to low levels 
in the future. With the alternative lead limit, we estimate that one of 
14 facilities noted above would be able to comply with the alternative 
limit with no additional control costs. Therefore, we estimate that 
with the revised limit of 0.1 mg/dscm along with the option to comply 
with the alternative limit (0.002 lbs/hr) that 13 existing facilities 
could be affected by these rule requirements and that total estimated 
costs to the source category are estimated to be $384,000 in 
incremental initial costs and $96,000 incremental annual costs. We 
estimate a total lead reduction for the source category of 0.64 tpy. 
More details on the costs are available in the Costs Impacts 
Memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Based on this analysis, for new and existing sources under the 
NESHAP, we are promulgating the revised emission limit of 0.1 mg/dscm, 
which we conclude reflects developments in technology under section 
112(d)(6) for most facilities and the alternative lead emission limit 
of 0.002 lbs/hr, which we conclude reflects developments under section 
112(d)(6) for very small facilities with fabric filter systems with 
very low flow rates, applicable to all facilities regardless of 
production capacity. We are also retaining the opacity limit of 0 
percent but are promulgating an option to use EPA Method 22 to 
demonstrate compliance with the daily and/or weekly visible emissions 
as discussed above in section III.A.6.c.
4. Technology Review for Fugitive Dust Emissions
    The same requirements proposed for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, as 
described in section III.A.4 above, were proposed as amendments to the 
NESHAP. During the technology review, we discovered that several 
facilities currently subject to the NESHAP already had requirements to 
reduce fugitive dust emissions through similar work practices in their 
operating permits including in the lead oxide unloading and storage 
areas. Other rules, including the NESHAPs for primary lead smelting 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 bearing materials 
in enclosed spaces or containers, and other measures.
    As discussed under section III.A.4, we received three comments 
regarding the proposed fugitive dust minimization work practices. In 
consideration of these comments and after additional research, 
described in section III.A.4 above, under the NESHAP, we are finalizing 
the same requirements as discussed in section III.A.4 above for 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart KKa. As a change to the proposal, we are promulgating 
a requirement that existing sources must develop and implement a 
fugitive dust minimization plan for the lead oxide unloading and 
storage area, which represents GACT. Based on the comments, we revised 
our cost estimates and estimate that the cost burden will be mostly 
labor to develop and implement the dust plan, and that most facilities 
would already own the equipment necessary, such as a HEPA vacuum, to 
carry out these work practices. Total estimated costs range from $0 
(for facilities that already have a fugitive dust plan and are 
implementing it) to $22,000 per facility per year. As discussed under 
section III.A.4, we have not quantified emission reductions as a result 
of implementing the work practices. It is difficult to quantify 
fugitive dust emissions since they are not released through a point, 
such as a stack, and cannot easily be measured. Therefore, for the 
reason discussed in section III.A.4, we have determined these costs are 
reasonable and are finalizing work practices to minimize fugitive dust 
in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas. The costs are discussed 
in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum, available in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
5. 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 and 
explained that the category includes, but is not limited to, facilities 
engaged in the manufacturing steps of lead oxide production, grid 
casting, paste mixing, and three-process operations (plate stacking, 
burning, and assembly). The EPA is aware of some facilities that 
conduct one or more of

[[Page 11573]]

these lead acid battery manufacturing processes but do not produce the 
final product of a battery. Thus, these facilities were not previously 
considered to be in the lead acid battery source category, and those 
processes were not subject to the lead acid battery NESHAP. To ensure 
these processes that are producing certain battery parts or input 
materials (such as grids or lead oxide) are regulated to the same 
extent as those that are located at facilities where the final battery 
products are produced, the EPA proposed to revise the applicability 
provisions in the NESHAP such that facilities that process lead to 
manufacture battery parts or input material would be subject to the 
NESHAP even if they do not produce batteries. Information from the 
technology review indicates that lead emissions from the processes at 
such facilities are controlled and can meet the emissions limits in the 
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP. However, the 
facilities would also need to comply with the compliance assurance 
measures and work practices of the proposed NESHAP, including the 
proposed fugitive dust mitigation plan requirements, improved 
monitoring of emission points with fabric filters, performance testing, 
reporting, and recordkeeping. We estimated the costs for compliance 
testing would be $23,000 to $34,000 per facility once every 5 years; 
and annual costs for the fugitive dust work practices would be $0 to 
$13,000 per facility.
    We received two comments on this proposed action. Hammond Group, a 
lead oxide manufacturer, and BCI commented that the EPA did not 
consider that some of these facilities could be subject to other 
NESHAP. BCI also commented that this amendment would bring in ``de 
minimus'' sources such as those that manufacturer cable and wires not 
necessarily used for lead acid batteries. A summary of these comments 
and the Agency's response is found in the Comment Summary and Response 
Document, available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA's intent with the proposed applicability amendment was to 
ensure that facilities involved in the primary lead acid battery 
manufacturing processes (grid casting, paste mixing, lead oxide 
manufacturing and three-process operations) but that do not make the 
end-product of a lead acid battery are subject to Federal regulations 
that limit their lead emissions. After consideration of the comments, 
we are finalizing the applicability provisions such that battery 
component facilities that are involved in the primary processes (grid 
casting, paste mixing, lead oxide manufacturing and three-process 
operations) and manufacturing battery parts or input material (i.e., 
grids and lead oxide) used in the manufacturing of lead acid batteries 
will be subject to the NESHAP. However, we are also finalizing a 
provision that if a facility is already subject to another NESHAP that 
controls relevant lead emissions, it is exempt from complying with the 
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart PPPPPP.
    After proposal, we became aware that the existing Clarios 
facilities in Florence, Kentucky and West Union, South Carolina do not 
make battery grids or any lead-bearing battery parts. These facilities 
are involved in making the plastic battery cases. Therefore, we have 
removed them from our facilities list. There are four facilities that 
we are aware of (and included in the proposal analysis) that will 
become subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, due to this 
applicability expansion: a battery grid producing facility, Clarios in 
Red Oak, Iowa; and three lead oxide manufacturers, Doe Run Fabricated 
Metals in Vancouver, Washington; and Powerlab, Inc. in Terrell, Texas, 
and Savanna, Illinois. The estimated costs for these facilities to 
comply with the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP 
range between $23,000 and $47,000 per facility once every 5 years for 
performance testing, and between $20,000 and $24,000 per year for all 
other requirements above what these facilities are already doing to 
comply with their state regulations.
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
    We proposed a requirement to conduct performance testing at least 
once every 5 years for all existing and new area sources. To reduce 
some of the cost burden, the EPA proposed 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 proposed that 
the NESHAP would include the same testing requirements that the EPA 
proposed under the new NSPS, as discussed above in section III.A.6.a. 
As explained in the proposed rule, the EPA has been adding requirements 
to NESHAP when other amendments are being made to the rules to include 
periodic performance tests to help ensure continuous compliance.
    As explained in section III.A.6.a., we received comments on testing 
from three stakeholders. More details regarding these comments, and the 
EPA's responses are provided in the Comment Summary and Response 
Document, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    We are promulgating the performance testing requirements as 
proposed. 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. We conclude performance testing costs 
are reasonable and necessary to ensure the emission standards in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart PPPPPP, are continuously met and enforceable.
b. Improved Monitoring of Emission Points Controlled by Fabric Filters 
and Scrubbers
    The 2007 area source NESHAP required facilities to conduct 
semiannual inspections and maintenance for emission points controlled 
by a fabric filter to ensure proper performance of the fabric filter. 
In addition, pressure drop or visible emission observations had to be 
conducted for the fabric filter daily (or weekly if the fabric filter 
has a secondary HEPA filter) to ensure the fabric filter was 
functioning properly. To reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that 
result in excess lead emissions, the EPA proposed 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. After consideration of the public comments, 
summarized in the Comment Summary and Response Document available in 
the docket for this action, we are finalizing quarterly inspections for 
all fabric filter systems (both primary and secondary). The estimated 
costs for the additional inspections range from $0 (for facilities 
already doing at least quarterly inspections) to $6,300 per facility 
per year which we have determined is reasonable.
    As discussed above in section III.A.6.b., standard monitoring of 
scrubbing systems includes measuring liquid flow rate across the 
scrubbing system. We proposed 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.
    We received no comments on this issue, and therefore we are 
finalizing a requirement to measure and record the

[[Page 11574]]

liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system that is not followed by a 
fabric filter at least once every 15 minutes. Based on our review, we 
only identified three facilities that have a scrubber system that is 
not followed by a fabric filter, and at least one of these facilities 
already has this requirement in their permit. We expect the other two 
facilities likely already have 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 a 
small unquantified increase in annual costs due to recordkeeping 
requirements.
c. Bag Leak Detection Systems
    As discussed above in section III.A.6.c, the EPA found several lead 
acid battery manufacturing facilities that have bag leak detection 
systems during the technology review, and we proposed the use of bag 
leak detection systems for new and existing large lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities as a development in operational procedures 
that would assure compliance with the area source NESHAP by identifying 
and correcting fabric filter failures. Taking the comments we received 
into consideration as well as the substantial costs to the industry for 
this requirement, we are not requiring existing facilities to install 
and operate bag leak detection systems. However, we are promulgating 
bag leak detection as an option and are finalizing operating limits and 
monitoring parameters for bag leak detection systems if they are used 
at a facility. The same operating limits and monitoring parameters that 
were proposed are being finalized. The rationale for this decision is 
the same as described above in section III.A.6.c.
    Considering comments received on the proposed provisions for fabric 
filter monitoring and inspections, and to reduce the likelihood of 
malfunctions that result in excess lead emissions, we are also 
finalizing an increase in fabric filter monitoring requirements (i.e., 
pressure drop and visible emissions readings) from once per day to 
twice per day for fabric filters without a secondary filter. 
Specifically, we are promulgating a requirement that for fabric filters 
without a secondary filter, facility operators must do one of the 
following measurements daily if the results of the most recent 
performance test is greater than 50 percent of the applicable lead 
emission limit: (1) record pressure drop two times per day with a 
minimum of 8 hours between the recordings; or (2) conduct visible 
emission observations two times per day with a minimum of 6 hours 
between observations. For fabric filters without a secondary filter 
that have performance test results less than 50 percent of the 
applicable emissions limit, we are retaining the requirement that 
facilities must do one of the following: (1) record pressure drop at 
least one time per day; or (2) conduct visible emission observations at 
least one time per day. We are also retaining as proposed the 
requirement for fabric filter systems with a secondary filter to record 
pressure drop weekly or conduct weekly visible emission observations.
    The estimated cost of the additional recording varies depending on 
whether or not a facility has the capability for automated data 
recordings or if they do manual recordings. The estimated cost ranges 
from approximately $8,000 to $80,000 per year per facility for manual 
data recording, and an estimated $200 to update software for automated 
data recording. For smaller facilities with multiple fabric filter 
baghouses that may record the pressure drop reading by hand, this 
requirement could be burdensome in addition to the other new 
requirements in the amended rules. To offset the potential additional 
costs for additional visible emission recordings, we are also 
promulgating an amendment to the method for conducting visible emission 
observations for fabric filters. The 2007 NESHAP required that EPA 
Method 9 be used for the daily and/or weekly visible emission 
observations. EPA Method 9 is a test that quantifies opacity, while EPA 
Method 22 is a qualitative test to determine the absence of visual 
emissions (i.e., 0 percent opacity). We are revising the regulations to 
allow for the use of EPA Method 22 as an alternative to EPA Method 9 
for the daily and weekly visible emission observations of the processes 
with 0 percent opacity standards. We are retaining the opacity 
standards in the rule of 0 percent for grid casting, paste mixing, 
three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing and other lead 
emitting operations and we are retaining the opacity standard of 5 
percent for lead reclamation. Because we have retained the opacity 
standards of 0 percent for the applicable processes in the final rule, 
EPA Method 22, in the case of lead acid battery manufacturing 
processes, will be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the 0 
percent opacity standard during the daily/weekly visible emissions 
observations. EPA Method 9 must still be used for daily and/or weekly 
visible emission observations for the lead reclamation process if a 
facility conducts these operations, and EPA Method 9 must still be used 
to determine compliance with the opacity standards in the rule during 
performance tests.
    We estimate that there are 19 facilities that may be required to 
record pressure drop twice a day or record observations of visible 
emissions twice a day. For facilities that record pressure drop daily 
to comply with the NESHAP, we estimate that the total cost to the 
industry for one additional pressure drop recording is approximately 
$71,000 per year with facility costs ranging from $0 to $12,100 per 
year, which we conclude is reasonable. The costs and assumptions are 
discussed in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum available in 
the docket.
    For facilities that conduct visible emission observations daily to 
comply with the NESHAP, we have estimated costs for one additional 
observation and recording of each fabric filter system with no 
secondary filter or bag leak detection system. We estimate that 
providing EPA Method 22 as an option for the daily and/or weekly 
visible emission observations, as discussed above, will be a cost 
savings for facilities. It is estimated that the net costs for an 
additional visible emission observation and recording using EPA Method 
22 are $95,300 for the entire industry and an average net cost of 
$2,400 per year per facility, which we conclude is reasonable. The 
costs and assumptions are discussed in more detail in the Cost Impacts 
Memorandum available in the docket.
7. Other Actions
a. Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission Limit
    As discussed above in section III.A.7.a, we proposed to retain the 
lead oxide manufacturing emission limit. Based on public comments 
(described above) we are finalizing a clarification that this emission 
limit applies to the primary emissions sources and their emission 
control devices (i.e., lead oxide production fabric filter baghouses), 
and that other sources associated with the lead oxide production 
source, such as building ventilation, would be ``other lead-emitting 
operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm emission limit.
b. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators of 
lead acid battery manufacturing facilities subject to the NESHAP at 40 
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, submit electronic copies of required 
performance test

[[Page 11575]]

reports and the semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring 
system performance and summary reports, through the EPA's CDX using the 
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 final rule requires that performance test results 
collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) is listed on the ERT website \5\ 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 in the ERT. For 
semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system 
performance and summary reports, the final rule requires that owners 
and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. The final version of the template for these 
reports will be located on the CEDRI website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirement
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has 
established standards in this rule that apply at all times. We have 
also revised Table 3 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) in 
several respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we 
have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions' 
requirement that the source develops an SSM plan. We have also 
eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is 
related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed 
rule and summarized again here.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not established 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.
    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 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. This reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
    As noted in the proposal for the amendments to the Lead Acid 
Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, under this decision, 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 proposed and are finalizing 
revisions to the NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11421 through 63.11427 that remove 
the SSM exemption under the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source 
NESHAP and any references to SSM-related requirements.

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

1. NSPS
    Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the 
final rule requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, will be the 
promulgation date. Affected sources that commence construction, or 
reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022, must comply 
with all requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, no later than the 
effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
2. NESHAP
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(10) the effective date of the final 
rule requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, is the 
promulgation date.
    For existing affected lead acid battery manufacturing facilities 
(i.e., facilities that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before February 23, 2022), there are specific compliance dates for each 
amended standard, as specified below. For the removal of the SSM 
exemptions, we are finalizing that facilities must comply by the 
effective date of the final rule. For the following final revisions, we 
are promulgating 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; increased fabric filter 
inspection frequency; additional pressure drop recording; revisions to 
the applicability provisions to include battery production processes at 
facilities that do not produce the final end product (i.e., batteries); 
and bag leak detection provisions.
    For the removal of the SSM exemptions, we proposed a compliance 
date of no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final 
rule, including for the proposed changes to the NESHAP being made to 
ensure that the regulations are consistent with the decision in Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) in which the court vacated 
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations 
governing the emissions of hazardous air pollutants during periods of 
SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). The EPA removed these SSM exemptions from 
the CFR in March 2021 to reflect the court's decision (86 FR 13819). In 
this action, we are changing the cross-reference to those General 
Provisions for the applicability of these two requirements from a 
``yes'' to ``no'' and adding rule-specific language at 40 CFR 
63.11423(a)(3) to ensure the rule applies as all times, and 40 CFR 
63.11423(a)(3) will be effective upon promulgation of this action. In 
addition, we do not expect additional time is necessary generally for 
facilities to comply with changes to SSM provisions because we have 
concluded that the sources can meet the otherwise applicable standards 
that are in effect at all times, as described in section III.B.7. We 
are therefore finalizing that facilities must comply with this 
requirement no later than the effective date of this final rule, with 
the exception of recordkeeping provisions. For recordkeeping under the 
SSM provisions, we are finalizing that facilities must comply with this 
requirement 90 days after the effective date of the final rule. 
Recordkeeping provisions associated with malfunction events (40 CFR 
63.11424(a)(7)(ii) and (iii)) shall be effective no later than 90

[[Page 11576]]

days after the effective date of this action. The EPA is requiring 
additional information under 40 CFR 63.11424 for recordkeeping of 
malfunction events, so the additional time is necessary to permit 
sources to read and understand the new requirements and adjust record 
keeping systems to comply. Reporting provisions are in accordance with 
the reporting requirements during normal operations and the semi-annual 
report of excess emissions.
    For the following final revisions, we are finalizing a compliance 
date of 3 years after the publication date of the final rule: Revised 
emission limits for paste mixing, grid casting, and lead reclamation; 
requirements to develop and follow a fugitive dust mitigation plan; and 
requirements that performance testing be conducted at least once every 
5 years.
    After the effective date of the final rule and until the applicable 
compliance date of the amended standards, affected existing lead acid 
battery manufacturing facilities must comply with either the current 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, or the amended 
standards.
    For existing affected lead acid battery component manufacturing 
facilities that become subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, the 
compliance date for all applicable requirements is 3 years after the 
publication date of the final rule. Newly affected lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities and newly affected lead acid battery component 
manufacturing facilities (i.e., facilities that commence construction 
or reconstruction after February 23, 2022) must comply with all 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, including the final 
amendments, by the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, 
whichever is later.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

1. NSPS
    The EPA has found through the BSER review for this source category 
that there are 40 existing lead acid battery manufacturing facilities 
subject to the NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants at 40 
CFR part 60, subpart KK. We are not currently aware of any planned or 
potential new lead acid battery manufacturing facilities, but it is 
possible that some existing facilities could be modified or 
reconstructed in the future. At this time, and over the next 3 years, 
the EPA anticipates that no facilities will become subject to the new 
NSPS for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plant at 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa.
2. NESHAP
    Through the technology review for the source category, the EPA 
found that there are 39 existing facilities subject to the NESHAP for 
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
PPPPPP. These facilities will be affected by the amendments to the 
NESHAP and four additional facilities will become subject to the NESHAP 
upon promulgation of the amendments.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

1. NSPS
    We are not expecting any new facilities to be built in the 
foreseeable future, but if any new facilities are built or any existing 
facility is modified or reconstructed in the future, the requirements 
in the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, would achieve an 
estimated 0.03 tpy to 0.1 tpy reduction of allowable lead emissions for 
each new facility from the source category compared to that of the 
current NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. We are also promulgating 
additional compliance assurance measures and work practices to minimize 
fugitive dust emissions, which will reduce the likelihood of excess 
emissions of lead. The reductions of lead from these compliance 
assurance measures are unquantified.
2. NESHAP
    The revised lead emission standard for paste mixing operations will 
achieve an estimated 0.6 tpy reduction of lead emissions. The revised 
lead emission standards for grid casting and lead reclamation 
facilities are not expected to result in additional lead emission 
reductions, as it is estimated that all facilities in the source 
category are already meeting the revised emissions limits. However, the 
new standards will reduce the allowable emissions from those sources 
and ensure that the emissions remain controlled and minimized moving 
forward. In addition, the Agency is finalizing work practices to 
minimize fugitive lead dust emissions and expects these will achieve 
some unquantified lead emission reductions. We are also finalizing 
several compliance assurance requirements which will help ensure 
continuous compliance with the NESHAP and help prevent noncompliant 
emissions of lead. The final amendments also include removal of the SSM 
exemptions. While we are unable to quantify the emissions that occur 
during periods of SSM or the specific emissions reductions that would 
occur due to this action, eliminating the SSM exemption has the 
potential to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the 
applicable standard during SSM periods.

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. NSPS
    The costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified affected facility 
to comply with the final regulatory requirements discussed above are 
described in detail in section III.A and are summarized below. As 
mentioned previously in this action, we do not expect any brand-new 
affected facilities in the foreseeable future. However, we do expect 
that some existing facilities could undergo modifications or 
reconstruction, and these facilities would incur the costs summarized 
below.
    Revised Emission Limit for Grid Casting: Estimated incremental 
capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to install 
and operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber 
(baseline) on grid casting operations are $230,500, with estimated 
incremental annual costs of $52,000 for a small facility, and are 
$374,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of $88,000 for a 
large facility.
    Revised Emission Limit for Lead Reclamation: Estimated incremental 
capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to install 
and operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber 
(baseline) on lead reclamation operations are $17,000 for both small 
and large facilities, with estimated incremental annual costs of $8,500 
for small facilities and $13,000 for large facilities.
    Revised Emission Limit for Paste Mixing Operations: Estimated 
incremental capital costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source 
to meet the revised emission limit through the use of higher efficiency 
bags (BSER) or inclusion of secondary filters (BSER) in the facility 
design compared to only including traditional primary fabric filters 
(baseline) are $18,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of 
$9,000 for a small facility, and are $60,000 capital, with estimated 
incremental annual costs of $30,000 for a large facility.
    Work Practices to Minimize Fugitive Lead Dust: Estimated 
incremental costs for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to 
develop and implement a fugitive dust minimization plan (BSER) compared 
to no fugitive dust minimization requirements (baseline) is $7,900 in 
initial costs to develop the

[[Page 11577]]

plan, with estimated annual costs to implement the plan of 
approximately $14,000 per facility.
    Bag Leak Detection Requirements: Estimated incremental capital 
costs for a new facility to install and operate bag leak detection 
systems on emissions control systems that do not have secondary filters 
(BSER) compared to no bag leak detection requirements (baseline) are 
$802,000, with estimated incremental annual costs of $161,000 per 
facility.
    Performance Testing Requirements: Estimated incremental costs for a 
new, reconstructed, or modified source to meet the revised testing 
frequency of once every 5 years (BSER) compared to only once for 
initial compliance (baseline) are $23,000 for the first stack and 
$5,500 for each additional stack tested at a facility during the same 
testing event. The costs per facility are estimated to be $0 to 
$181,000 once every 5 years, or an annual average cost of $0 to 
$36,000, depending on number of stacks and the current frequency of 
testing.
    Fabric Filter Inspection Requirements: Estimated incremental costs 
for a new, reconstructed, or modified source to meet the revised fabric 
filter inspection frequency of once per quarter (BSER) compared to once 
every 6 months (baseline) are $6,300 annually per facility.
    The total estimated incremental capital costs per new facility are 
approximately $898,000 for a small facility and $973,000 for a large 
facility, with estimated incremental annual costs of $251,000 per small 
facility and $300,000 per large facility. The total estimated 
incremental capital costs per modified or reconstructed facility (which 
would not have bag leak detection requirements) are approximately 
$96,000 for a small facility and $171,000 for a large facility, with 
estimated incremental annual costs of $90,000 per small facility and 
$140,000 per large facility.
2. NESHAP
    The estimated costs for an affected source to comply with the 
amended NESHAP are the same as the costs described above (in section 
IV.C.1) for modified or reconstructed facilities under the NSPS, 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart KKa. Costs for performance testing are estimated to be 
$0 to $180,000 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 all other amendments for the entire source 
category (43 facilities) are an estimated $740,000 capital costs and 
annual costs of $570,000 (equates to an average cost per facility of 
$17,000 capital and $13,000 annualized). More detailed information on 
cost impacts on existing sources is available in the Cost Impacts 
Memorandum available in the docket for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for these final rules, 
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: Final Report, which is available in the 
docket for this action. The economic impacts of the final rules 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 these final rules will 
incur total annualized costs of 0.7 percent or greater of their 
revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies 
and the industries impacted by these final rules, and there will not be 
substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs of 
the final rules 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.

E. What are the benefits?

1. NSPS
    The new standards for grid casting, lead reclamation and paste 
mixing will reduce the allowable emissions of lead from new, 
reconstructed, or modified sources and ensure emissions remain 
controlled and minimized moving forward.
2. NESHAP
    As described above, the final amendments are expected to result in 
a reduction of lead emissions of 0.6 tpy for the industry. We are also 
finalizing several compliance assurance requirements which help prevent 
noncompliant emissions of lead, and the final amendments also revise 
the standards such that they apply at all times, which includes SSM 
periods. In addition, the final requirements to submit reports and test 
results electronically will improve monitoring, compliance, and 
implementation of the rule. While we did not perform a quantitative 
analysis of the health impacts expected due to the final rule 
amendments, we qualitatively characterize the health impacts in the 
memorandum Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Lead 
Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source 
Technology Review: Final Report, which is available in the docket for 
this action.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating EJ in the 
Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple 
Executive orders, the Agency has conducted an analysis of the 
demographic groups living near existing facilities in the lead acid 
battery manufacturing source category. For the new NSPS, we are not 
aware of any future new, modified, or reconstructed facilities that 
will be become subject to the NSPS in the foreseeable future. For the 
NESHAP, we anticipate a total of 43 facilities to be affected by this 
rule. For the demographic proximity analysis, we analyzed populations 
living near existing facilities to serve as a proxy of potential 
populations living near future facilities that may be impacted by the 
NSPS. We have also updated the analysis conducted at proposal by 
including one additional existing facility. The results of this 
addition do not change the findings that some communities around 
existing sources are above the national average in the demographic 
categories of Hispanic/Latino, linguistically isolated, and 25 years of 
age and over without a high school diploma. Executive Order 12898 
directs the EPA to identify the populations of concern who are most 
likely to experience unequal burdens from environmental harms; 
specifically, minority populations (i.e., people of color), low-income 
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994). 
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial 
equity and support underserved communities through Federal government 
actions (86 FR 7009; January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ 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

[[Page 11578]]

commercial operations or programs and policies.'' 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.
    This action finalizes the NSPS for new, modified, and reconstructed 
sources that commence construction after February 23, 2022, and the 
NESHAP for existing and new sources. Since the locations of the 
construction of any new lead acid battery manufacturing facilities are 
not known, and it is not known which of the existing facilities will be 
modified or reconstructed in the future, the demographic analysis was 
conducted for existing facilities as a characterization of the 
demographics in areas where these facilities are located. The 
demographic analysis includes an assessment of individual demographic 
groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the 
facilities. We then compared the data from the analysis to the national 
average for each of the demographic groups.
1. NSPS
    For the NSPS, we have updated the analysis presented in the 
proposed rulemaking to include one additional existing source. However, 
the conclusions presented at proposal and in this final rule remain the 
same. For the NESHAP, we have updated the analysis presented in the 
proposed rulemaking to include this additional existing facility and 
three other facilities that will become subject to the NESHAP upon 
promulgation of the amendments to the rule.
    The results of the demographics analysis for the NSPS (see Table 1) 
indicate that for populations within 5 km of the 40 existing 
facilities, the percent of the population that is Hispanic/Latino is 
above the national average (43 percent versus 19 percent) and the 
percent of people living in linguistic isolation is above the national 
average (9 percent versus 5 percent). The category average for these 
populations is primarily driven by five facilities with Hispanic/Latino 
populations within 5 km that were at least 3 times the national 
average. The percent of the population over 25 without a high school 
diploma is above the national average (19 percent versus 12 percent). 
While on average across all 40 facilities, the African American 
population living within 5 km is below the national average (10 percent 
versus 12 percent), four facilities did have African American 
populations within 5 km that were at least three times the national 
average.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 1) indicate that 
for populations within 50 km of the 40 existing facilities, the average 
percentages for most demographic groups are closer to the national 
averages. However, the average percent of the population that is 
Hispanic/Latino (25 percent) and in linguistic isolation (7 percent) 
are still above the national averages (19 percent and 5 percent, 
respectively). In addition, the average percent of the population 
within 50 km of the facilities that is Other/Multiracial is above the 
national average (11 percent versus 8 percent). The percent of the 
population over 25 without a high school diploma is above the national 
average (14 percent versus 12 percent).

      Table 1--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population      Population
                                                                                   within 50 km     within 5 km
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide    of 40 existing  of 40 existing
                                                                                     facilities      facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242      47,911,142       2,245,359
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                           Race and Ethnicity by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              60              52              37
African American................................................              12              12              10
Native American.................................................             0.7             0.3             0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              19              25              43
Other and Multiracial...........................................               8              11               9
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Income by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              13              12              14
Above Poverty Level.............................................              87              88              86
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              12              14              19
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              88              86              81
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               5               7               9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based
  on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are
  based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

[[Page 11579]]

    The EPA expects that the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS and 
NESHAP will ensure compliance via their requirements for performance 
testing, inspections, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting and by 
complying with the standards at all times (including periods of SSM). 
The rule will also increase data transparency through electronic 
reporting. Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in proximity 
to any future affected sources, including in communities potentially 
overburdened by pollution, which are often people of color, low-income 
and indigenous communities, will be minimized at future new, modified, 
and reconstructed facilities through implementation of controls, work 
practices, and compliance assurance measures discussed in section III.A 
of this preamble to meet the NSPS.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Facilities, 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0619).
2. NESHAP
    For the NESHAP, we updated the analysis conducted at proposal by 
analyzing four additional facilities that will be subject to the rule 
(from 39 to 43 facilities total). The results of the demographics 
analysis for the NESHAP (see Table 2) indicate that for populations 
within 5 km of the 43 facilities subject to the NESHAP, the percent of 
the population that is Hispanic/Latino is above the national average 
(43 percent versus 19 percent) and the percent of people living in 
linguistic isolation is above the national average (9 percent versus 5 
percent). The category average for these populations is primarily 
driven by five facilities that had percent Hispanic/Latino populations 
within 5 km that were at least 3 times the national average. The 
percent of the population over 25 years of age without a high school 
diploma is above the national average (18 percent versus 12 percent). 
Although the category average population within 5 km was below the 
national average for African American populations (10 percent versus 12 
percent), four facilities did have African American populations within 
5 km that were at least 3 times the national average.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 2) indicate that 
for populations within 50 km of the 43 facilities subject to the 
NESHAP, the category average percentages for most demographic groups 
are closer to the national averages. However, the average percent of 
the population that is Hispanic/Latino (25 percent) and in linguistic 
isolation (7 percent) are still above the national averages (19 percent 
and 5 percent, respectively). In addition, the average percent of the 
population within 50 km of the facilities that is Other/Multiracial is 
above the national average (11 percent versus 8 percent). The percent 
of the population over 25 without a high school diploma is above the 
national average (14 percent versus 12 percent).
    The EPA expects that the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area 
Source NESHAP will result in HAP emissions reductions at 14 of the 43 
facilities. We examined the demographics within 5 km and 50 km of these 
14 facilities to determine if differences exist from the larger 
universe of 43 facilities subject to the NESHAP (see Table 2). In 
contrast to the broader set of NESHAP facilities, the population within 
5 km and 50 km of the 14 facilities for which we expect emissions 
reductions, is above the national average for the percent African 
American population (20 and 22 percent versus 12 percent). This higher 
average percent African American population is largely driven by the 
populations surrounding three facilities, which range from 2 to 8 times 
the national average. The other 11 facilities are below the national 
average for the African American population. Also, the average percent 
Hispanic/Latino (13 and 21 percent versus 19 percent) and the average 
percent Linguistic Isolation (3 and 4 percent versus 5 percent) 
demographic category are near or below the national average for these 
14 facilities.

    Table 2--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP
                                                   Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  All existing NESHAP facilities    NESHAP facilities for which
                                                         (43 facilities)             emissions reductions are
                                                 --------------------------------    expected (14 facilities)
        Demographic group           Nationwide                                   -------------------------------
                                                    Population      Population      Population      Population
                                                    within 5 km    within 50 km    within 50 km     within 5 km
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................     328,016,242      49,508,055       2,293,170      12,320,826         420,432
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Race and Ethnicity by Percent
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................              60              52              38              51              57
African American................              12              12              10              20              22
Native American.................             0.7             0.3             0.3             0.4             0.4
Hispanic or Latino (includes                  19              25              43              21              13
 white and nonwhite)............
Other and Multiracial...........               8              11               9               8               8
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Income by Percent
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............              13              12              14              14              15
Above Poverty Level.............              87              88              86              86              85
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Education by Percent
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High                    12              14              18              13              11
 School Diploma.................
Over 25 and with a High School                88              86              82              87              89
 Diploma........................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11580]]

 
Linguistically Isolated.........               5               7               9               4               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based
  on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are
  based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Facilities, 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0619).
    As explained in the proposal preamble (87 FR 10140), current 
ambient air quality monitoring data and modeling analyses indicate that 
ambient lead concentrations near the existing lead acid battery 
manufacturing facilities are all below the NAAQS for lead. 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. With ambient concentrations 
below the NAAQS prior to the finalization of these standards, we 
conclude that the emissions from lead acid battery manufacturing area 
source facilities are not likely to pose significant risks or impacts 
to human health in the baseline prior to these regulations. The review 
and update of the NSPS and NESHAP in this action will further reduce 
lead exposures and HAP emissions to provide additional protection to 
human health and the environment. The EPA expects that the Lead Acid 
Battery Manufacturing NSPS and NESHAP will reduce future lead emissions 
due to the more stringent standards finalized for the grid casting, 
paste mixing, and lead reclamation processes. We expect lead emission 
reductions of 0.64 tpy from paste mixing facilities at existing lead 
acid battery manufacturing plants as discussed in sections III.A.3 and 
III.B.3. We also expect to provide additional protection to human 
health and the environment by finalizing compliance assurance measures 
such as requirements for performance testing, inspections, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting and by requiring compliance with the 
standards at all times (including periods of SSM), and by expanding the 
applicability provisions to certain battery component facilities. The 
rules will also increase data transparency through electronic 
reporting. Therefore, the level of HAP emissions to which populations 
in proximity to the affected sources are exposed will be reduced by the 
NESHAP requirements being finalized in this action and will be 
minimized at any future new, modified, or reconstructed source under 
the NSPS.

V. 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 the final 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 number 2739.01 and OMB control number 2060-NEW for 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart KKa, and EPA ICR number 2256.07 and OMB control number 2060-
0598 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 
finalizing 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 43 for the NESHAP based on our 
review of operating permits and consultation with industry 
representatives and state/local agencies. We are finalizing 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the new NSPS, 
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: 43 facilities for 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart

[[Page 11581]]

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, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and the NESHAP, averaged 
over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 2,490 hours (per 
year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after 
the amendments are final is estimated to be 60 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 
new NSPS and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is 
estimated to be $168,000 (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 $3,070.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities in this 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 manufacturing facilities or 
facilities that do not make lead acid batteries but have a lead acid 
battery grid casting process or a lead oxide production process. 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 1.6 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 4 
of the 5 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: Final Report, 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. This 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

    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. The EPA's assessment of the potential impacts to human health 
from emissions at existing sources were discussed at proposal (87 FR 
10140). The newly required work practices to minimize fugitive dust 
containing lead and the revised emission limits described in sections 
III.A.4 and III.B.4 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.

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, 22, 
and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified 
for EPA Methods 12, 22, and 29 for lead.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the 
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures 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 VCS was identified as an acceptable alternative to an EPA test 
method for the purposes of this rule; ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 
Atmosphere''. ASTM D7520-16 is a test method describing the procedures 
to determine the opacity of a plume using digital imagery and 
associated hardware and software. The opacity of a plume is determined 
by the application of a Digital Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT) that 
consists of a Digital Still Camera, Analysis Software, and the Output 
Function's content to obtain and interpret digital images to determine 
and report plume opacity. ASTM

[[Page 11582]]

D7520-16 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the 
following conditions:
    1. During the 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 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, 
and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification 
determination.
    4. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four 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 the VCS 
memorandum is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    The search identified one other VCS that was a potentially 
acceptable alternative to an EPA test method for the purposes of this 
rule. However, after reviewing the standards, the EPA determined that 
the candidate VCS ASTM D4358-94 (1999), ``Standard Test Method for Lead 
and Chromium in Air Particulate Filter Samples of Lead Chromate Type 
Pigment Dusts by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy,'' is not an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 12 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.
    The ASTM standards (methods) are reasonably available for purchase 
individually through ASTM, International (see 40 CFR 60.17 and 63.14) 
and through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Webstore, 
https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone (212) 642-4980 for customer 
service.
    We are also incorporating by reference the EPA guidance document 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015). This 
document provides guidance on fabric filter and monitoring systems 
including monitor selection, installation, set up, adjustment, and 
operation. The guidance also discusses factors that may affect monitor 
performance as well as quality assurance procedures.
    The EPA guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) is reasonably available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf or by contacting the National 
Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 1-800-553-6847.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 68.3(f), 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.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and 
low-income populations.
    The EPA anticipates that the human health and environmental 
conditions that exist prior to this action have the potential to result 
in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects 
on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. 
However, as we explained in the proposed rule preamble, based on 
analyses of emissions and available ambient monitoring data (as 
described in section IV.A of the proposal preamble (87 FR 10140)), 
ambient lead concentrations near the facilities are all below the NAAQS 
for lead prior to these regulations. Therefore, we concluded 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 (see 87 FR 10134 at 10140).
    The EPA anticipates that this action is likely to reduce the 
existing potential disproportionate and adverse effects on people of 
color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. The 
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.F of this 
preamble. As discussed in section IV.F of this preamble, the 
demographic analysis indicates that the following groups are above the 
national average within 5 km of the 43 existing facilities: Hispanics/
Latino, people living below the poverty level, 25 years old or greater 
without a high school diploma, and people living in linguistic 
isolation. Populations within 5 km of the 14 facilities that the EPA 
expects that the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP will result in 
HAP emissions reductions are above the national average for African 
Americans and people living below the poverty level. This action 
further reduces lead and other criteria and HAP emissions to provide 
additional protection to human health and the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report for this action to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. Neither the NSPS nor the 
NESHAP amended by this action constitute a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 
60 and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.

[[Page 11583]]

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(196) through (212) as paragraphs 
(h)(197) through (213);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (h)(196); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (j)(1).
    The addition and revision read as follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (196) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 
2016; IBR approved for Sec.  60.374a(d).
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, 
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  60.373a(b); 60.2145(r); 60.2710(r); 60.4905(b); 
60.5225(b).
* * * * *

0
3. The heading for subpart KK is revised to read as follows:

Subpart KK--Standards of Performance for Lead-Acid Battery 
Manufacturing Plants for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or 
Modification Commenced After January 14, 1980, and On or Before 
February 23, 2022

0
4. Section 60.370 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.370  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (c) Any facility under paragraph (b) of this section the 
construction or modification of which is commenced after January 14, 
1980, and on or before February 23, 2022, is subject to the 
requirements of this subpart.

0
5. Subpart KKa is added to read as follows:

Subpart KKa--Standards of Performance for Lead Acid Battery 
Manufacturing Plants for Which Construction, Modification or 
Reconstruction Commenced After February 23, 2022

Sec.
60.370a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.371a Definitions.
60.372a Standards for lead.
60.373a Monitoring of emissions and operations.
60.374a Test methods and procedures.
60.375a Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Sec.  60.370a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the affected 
facilities listed in paragraph (b) of this section at any lead acid 
battery manufacturing plant that produces or has the design capacity to 
produce in one day (24 hours) batteries containing an amount of lead 
equal to or greater than 5.9 Mg (6.5 tons).
    (b) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following 
affected facilities used in the manufacture of lead acid storage 
batteries:
    (1) Grid casting facility.
    (2) Paste mixing facility.
    (3) Three-process operation facility.
    (4) Lead oxide manufacturing facility.
    (5) Lead reclamation facility.
    (6) Other lead-emitting operations.
    (c) Any facility under paragraph (b) of this section for which the 
construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced after 
February 23, 2022, is subject to the requirements of this subpart.

Sec.  60.371a  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, the definitions in paragraphs (a) through 
(i) of this section apply. All terms not defined in this subpart have 
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
    (a) Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the 
exhaust of a fabric filter (baghouse) in order to detect bag leaks and 
other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is 
not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light 
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously 
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    (b) Lead acid battery manufacturing plant means any plant that 
produces a storage battery using lead and lead compounds for the plates 
and sulfuric acid for the electrolyte.
    (c) Grid casting facility means the facility which includes all 
lead melting pots that remelt scrap from onsite lead acid battery 
manufacturing processes, and machines used for casting the grid used in 
lead acid batteries.
    (d) Lead oxide manufacturing facility means a facility that 
produces lead oxide from lead for use in lead acid battery 
manufacturing, including lead oxide production and product recovery 
operations. Local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts 
serving lead oxide production areas are not part of the lead oxide 
manufacturing facility.
    (e) Lead reclamation facility means the facility that casts 
remelted lead scrap generated by onsite lead acid battery manufacturing 
processes into lead ingots for use in the battery manufacturing 
process, and which is not a furnace affected under subpart L of this 
part. Lead scrap remelting processes that are used directly (not cast 
into an ingot first) in a grid casting facility or a three-process 
operation facility are parts of those facilities and are not part of a 
lead reclamation facility.
    (f) Other lead-emitting operation means any lead acid battery 
manufacturing plant operation from which lead emissions are collected 
and ducted to the atmosphere and which is not part of a grid casting, 
lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation, paste mixing, or three-
process operation facility, or a furnace affected under subpart L of 
this part. These operations also include local exhaust ventilation or 
building ventilation exhausts serving lead oxide production areas.
    (g) Paste mixing facility means the facility including lead oxide 
storage, conveying, weighing, metering, and charging operations; paste 
blending, handling, and cooling operations; and plate pasting, takeoff, 
cooling, and drying operations.
    (h) Three-process operation facility means the facility including 
those processes involved with plate stacking, burning or strap casting, 
and assembly of elements into the battery case.
    (i) Total enclosure means a containment building that is completely 
enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent exposure to the 
elements and that has limited openings to allow access and egress for 
people and vehicles.

Sec.  60.372a  Standards for lead.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject 
to the provisions of this subpart may cause the emissions listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section to be discharged into the 
atmosphere. The emission limitations and opacity limitations listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section apply at all times, 
including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As provided in 
Sec.  60.11(f), this paragraph (a) supersedes the exemptions for 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction in the general provisions 
in subpart A of this part. You must also comply with

[[Page 11584]]

the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (1) From any grid casting facility, any gases that contain lead in 
excess of 0.08 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of 
exhaust (0.000035 gr/dscf).
    (2) From any paste mixing facility, any gases that contain in 
excess of 0.10 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of 
exhaust (0.0000437 gr/dscf) or emit no more than 0.9 gram of lead per 
hour (0.002 lbs/hr) total from all paste mixing sources. If a facility 
is complying with the 0.9 gram of lead per hour, you must sum the 
emission rate from all the paste mixing sources.
    (3) From any three-process operation facility, any gases that 
contain in excess of 1.00 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic 
meter of exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
    (4) From any lead oxide manufacturing facility, any gases that 
contain in excess of 5.0 milligrams of lead per kilogram of lead feed 
(0.010 lb/ton).
    (5) From any lead reclamation facility, any gases that contain in 
excess of 0.45 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter of 
exhaust (0.000197 gr/dscf).
    (6) From any other lead-emitting operation, any gases that contain 
in excess of 1.00 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of 
exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
    (7) From any affected facility other than a lead reclamation 
facility, any gases with greater than 0 percent opacity (measured 
according to EPA Method 9 of appendix A to this part and rounded to the 
nearest whole percentage or measured according to EPA Method 22 of 
appendix A to this part).
    (8) From any lead reclamation facility, any gases with greater than 
5 percent opacity (measured according to EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 
this part and rounded to the nearest whole percentage).
    (b) When two or more facilities at the same plant (except the lead 
oxide manufacturing facility) are ducted to a common control device, an 
equivalent standard for the total exhaust from the commonly controlled 
facilities must be determined using equation 1 to this paragraph (b) as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.000

Where:

Se = is the equivalent standard for the total exhaust 
stream, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Sa = is the actual standard for each exhaust stream 
ducted to the control device, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
N = is the total number of exhaust streams ducted to the control 
device.
Qsda = is the dry standard volumetric flow rate of the 
effluent gas stream from each facility ducted to the control device, 
dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
QsdT = is the total dry standard volumetric flow rate of 
all effluent gas streams ducted to the control device, dscm/hr 
(dscf/hr).

    (c) The owner or operator must prepare, and at all times operate 
according to, a fugitive dust mitigation plan that describes in detail 
the measures that will be put in place and implemented to control 
fugitive dust emissions in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas. 
You must prepare a fugitive dust mitigation plan according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must submit the fugitive dust mitigation 
plan to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and 
approval when initially developed and any time changes are made.
    (2) The fugitive dust mitigation plan must at a minimum include the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Lead oxide unloading and storage areas. Surfaces used for 
vehicular material transfer activity must be cleaned at least once per 
month, by wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a filter rated by the 
manufacturer to achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency for 0.3 micron 
particles in a manner that does not generate fugitive lead dust, except 
when sand or a similar material has been spread on the area to provide 
traction on ice or snow.
    (ii) Spills in lead oxide unloading and storage areas. For any leak 
or spill that occurs during the unloading and storage process, complete 
washing or vacuuming the area to remove all spilled or leaked lead 
bearing material within 2 hours of the leak or spill occurrence.
    (iii) Materials storage. Dust forming materials (that contain lead 
or lead compounds) must be stored in sealed, leak-proof containers or 
in a total enclosure.
    (iv) Records. The fugitive dust mitigation plan must specify that 
records be maintained of all cleaning performed under paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

Sec.  60.373a  Monitoring of emissions and operations.

    (a) The owner or operator of any lead acid battery manufacturing 
facility subject to the provisions of this subpart and controlled by a 
scrubbing system(s) must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 
monitoring device(s) that measures and records the liquid flow rate and 
pressure drop across the scrubbing system(s) at least once every 15 
minutes. The monitoring device must have an accuracy of 5 
percent over its operating range. The operating liquid flow rate must 
be maintained within 10 percent of the average liquid 
flowrate during the most recent performance test. If a liquid flow rate 
or pressure drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges 
as determined during the most recent performance test, you must record 
the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You must also 
record the corrective actions taken. You must submit an excess 
emissions and monitoring systems performance report and summary report 
required under Sec.  60.375a(c).
    (b) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter without a 
secondary filter must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(2) of this section and either paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of this section. 
New lead acid battery plants with emission points controlled by a 
fabric filter without a secondary filter must meet the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Fabric filters equipped with a high 
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or other secondary filter must 
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (6) of 
this section.
    (1) You must perform quarterly inspections and maintenance to 
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes 
inspection of structural and filter integrity.
    (2) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions 
specified in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this section for a 
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one 
replacement fabric filter onsite at all times for that process or 
fabric filter control device. The characteristics of the

[[Page 11585]]

replacement filters must be the same as the current fabric filters in 
use or have characteristics that would achieve equal or greater 
emission reductions.
    (3) Install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop monitoring 
device to measure the differential pressure drop across the fabric 
filter during all times when the process is operating. The pressure 
drop must be recorded at least twice per day (at least 8 hours apart) 
if the results of the most recent performance test indicate that 
emissions from the facility are greater than 50 percent of the 
applicable lead emissions limit in Sec.  60.372a(a)(1) through (6). The 
pressure drop must be recorded at least once per day if the results of 
the most recent performance test indicate that emissions are less than 
or equal to 50 percent of the applicable lead emissions limit in Sec.  
60.372a(a)(1) through (6). If a pressure drop is observed outside of 
the normal operational ranges as specified by the manufacturer, you 
must record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You 
must submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system 
performance report and summary report required under Sec.  60.375a(c). 
You must also record the corrective actions taken and verify pressure 
drop is within normal operational range. These corrective actions may 
include but not be limited to those provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn 
or broken filters.
    (ii) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the 
control device.
    (iii) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to 
other control devices.
    (iv) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
    (4) Conduct a visible emissions observation using EPA Method 9 (6 
minutes) or EPA Method 22 (5 minutes) of appendix A to this part while 
the process is in operation to verify that no visible emissions are 
occurring at the discharge point to the atmosphere from any emissions 
source subject to the requirements of Sec.  60.372a(a) or (b). The 
visible emissions observation must be conducted at least twice daily 
(at least 6 hours apart) if the results of the most recent performance 
test indicate that emissions are greater than 50 percent of the 
applicable lead emissions limit in Sec.  60.372a(a)(1) through (6). The 
visible emissions observation must be conducted at least once per day 
if the results of the most recent performance test indicate that 
emissions are less than or equal to 50 percent of the applicable lead 
emissions limit in Sec.  60.372a(a)(1) through (6). If visible 
emissions are detected, you must record the incident and submit this 
information in an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system 
performance report and summary report required under Sec.  60.375a(c) 
and take immediate corrective action. You must also record the 
corrective actions taken. These corrective actions may include, but are 
not limited to, those provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iv) of 
this section.
    (5) If the lead acid battery manufacturing plant was constructed 
after February 23, 2022, and have emissions points controlled by a 
fabric filter, you must install and operate a bag leak detection system 
that meets the specifications and requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) 
through (ix) of this section. For any other affected facility listed in 
Sec.  60.370a(b) that was constructed, modified, or reconstructed after 
February 23, 2022, that operates a bag leak detection system, the bag 
leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section. Emission points 
controlled by a fabric filter that is equipped with, and monitored 
with, a bag leak detection system meeting the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section may 
have the inspections required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
performed semiannually.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter as lead 
emissions at concentrations at or below the values in Sec.  60.372a(a), 
as applicable to the process for which the fabric filter is used to 
control emissions. Where the fabric filter is used as a control device 
for more than one process, the lowest applicable value in Sec.  
60.372a(a) must be used.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative particulate matter loadings.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate 
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (iv) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in 
a manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17) and the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the 
system.
    (v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (vi) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating 
procedures manual required under paragraph (b)(2)(ix) of this section. 
You cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or 
decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period 
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that 
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition.
    (vii) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, you must install the bag leak detector downstream of the fabric 
filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (ix) You must develop a standard operating procedures manual for 
the bag leak detection system that includes procedures for making 
system adjustments and a corrective action plan, which specifies the 
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system 
alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a minimum, the 
procedures that you will use to determine and record the time and cause 
of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize 
emissions as specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(ix)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (A) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be 
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (B) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the 
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to, 
those listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(ix)(B)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (3) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (4) Sealing off defective baghouse compartment.

[[Page 11586]]

    (5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (6) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
    (6) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter equipped with a 
secondary filter, such as a HEPA filter, are exempt from the 
requirement in paragraph (b)(5) of this section to be equipped with a 
bag leak detection system. You must meet the requirements specified in 
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section and either paragraph (b)(6)(ii) or 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions 
specified in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this section for a 
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one 
replacement primary fabric filter and one replacement secondary filter 
onsite at all times for that process or fabric filter control device. 
The characteristics of the replacement filters must be the same as the 
current fabric filters in use or have characteristics that would 
achieve equal or greater emission reductions.
    (ii) You must perform the pressure drop monitoring requirements in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section. You may perform these requirements 
once per week rather than once or twice daily.
    (iii) You must perform the visible emissions observation 
requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You may perform these 
requirements once per week rather than once or twice daily.

Sec.  60.374a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec.  60.8, the 
owner or operator must use as reference methods and procedures the test 
methods in appendix A to this part or other methods and procedures as 
specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.  60.8(b).
    (b) After the initial performance test required in Sec.  60.8(a), 
you must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate compliance 
with the lead and opacity standards in Sec.  60.372a. Performance 
testing must be conducted for each affected source subject to lead and 
opacity standards in Sec.  60.372a, that has not had a performance test 
within the last 5 years, except as described in paragraph (c) of this 
section. Thereafter, subsequent performance tests for each affected 
source must be completed no less frequently than every 5 years from the 
date the emissions source was last tested.
    (c) In lieu of conducting subsequent performance tests for each 
affected source, you may elect to group similar affected sources 
together and conduct subsequent performance tests on one representative 
affected source within each group of similar affected sources. The 
determination of whether affected sources are similar must meet the 
criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If you decide to test 
representative affected sources, you must prepare and submit a testing 
plan as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (1) If you elect to test representative affected sources, the 
affected sources that are grouped together must be of the same process 
type (e.g., grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations) and 
also have the same type of air pollution control device (e.g., fabric 
filters). You cannot group affected sources from different process 
types or with different air pollution control device types together for 
the purposes of this section.
    (2) The results of the performance test conducted for the affected 
source selected as representative of a group of similar affected 
sources will represent the results for each affected source within the 
group. In the performance test report, all affected sources in the 
group will need to be listed.
    (3) If you plan to conduct subsequent performance tests on 
representative emission units, you must submit a test plan. This test 
plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority for 
review and approval no later than 90 days prior to the first scheduled 
performance test. The test plan must contain the information specified 
in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify 
all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission 
units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the 
emission unit that will be the representative unit for that group and 
subject to performance testing.
    (ii) A list of the process type and type of air pollution control 
device on each emission unit.
    (iii) The date of last test for each emission unit and a schedule 
indicating when you will conduct performance tests for each emission 
unit within the representative groups.
    (4) If you conduct subsequent performance tests on representative 
emission units, the unit with the oldest test must be tested first, and 
each subsequent performance test must be performed for a different unit 
until all units in the group have been tested. The order of testing for 
each subsequent test must proceed such that the unit in the group with 
the least recent performance test is the next unit to be tested.
    (5) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. You must 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. You must make available to the Administrator in the test 
report, records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 
performance tests.
    (d) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the lead 
and opacity standards in Sec.  60.372a, as follows:
    (1) EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 of appendix A to this part must 
be used to determine the lead concentration (CPb) and the volumetric 
flow rate (Qsda) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample 
volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 
dscf).
    (2) EPA Method 9 of appendix A to this part and the procedures in 
Sec.  60.11 must be used to determine opacity during the performance 
test. For EPA Method 9, the opacity numbers must be rounded off to the 
nearest whole percentage. ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the 
specified conditions in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) 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).
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) 
independent technology users apply the software to determine the 
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any

[[Page 11587]]

one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) 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.
    (3) When different operations in a three-process operation facility 
are ducted to separate control devices, the lead emission concentration 
(C) from the facility must be determined using equation 1 to this 
paragraph (d)(3) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.001

Where:

C = concentration of lead emissions for the entire facility, mg/dscm 
(gr/dscf).
Ca = concentration of lead emissions from facility ``a,'' 
mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsda = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from facility 
``a,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
n = total number of control devices to which separate operations in 
the facility are ducted.

    (4) The owner or operator of lead oxide manufacturing facility must 
determine compliance with the lead standard in Sec.  60.372a(a)(5) as 
follows:
    (i) The emission rate (E) from lead oxide manufacturing facility 
must be computed for each run using equation 2 to this paragraph 
(d)(4)(i) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.002

Where:

E = emission rate of lead, mg/kg (lb/ton) of lead charged.
CPbi = concentration of lead from emission point ``i,'' 
mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission 
point ``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
M = number of emission points in the affected facility.
P = lead feed rate to the facility, kg/hr (ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1.0 mg/mg (7000 gr/lb).

    (ii) The average lead feed rate (P) must be determined for each run 
using equation 3 to this paragraph (d)(4)(ii) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.003

Where:

N = number of lead ingots charged.
W = average mass of the lead ingots, kg (ton).
Q = duration of run, hr.

Sec.  60.375a  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section and maintain them in a 
format readily available for review onsite for a period of 5 years.
    (1) Records of pressure drop values and liquid flow rate from the 
monitoring required in Sec.  60.373a(a) for scrubbing systems.
    (2) Records of fabric filter inspections and maintenance activities 
required in Sec.  60.373a(b)(1).
    (3) Records required under Sec.  60.373a(b)(3) or (b)(6)(ii) of 
fabric filter pressure drop, pressure drop observed outside of normal 
operating ranges as specified by the manufacturer, and corrective 
actions taken.
    (4) Records of the required opacity measurements in Sec.  
60.373a(b)(4) or (b)(6)(iii).
    (5) If a bag leak detection system is used under Sec.  
60.373a(b)(5), for a period of 5 years, keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (ii) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the 
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (iii) All records of inspections and maintenance activities 
required under Sec.  60.373a(b)(5).
    (6) Records of all cleaning required as part of the practices 
described in the fugitive dust mitigation plan required under Sec.  
60.372a(c) for the control of fugitive dust emissions.
    (7) You must keep the records of failures to meet an applicable 
standard in this part as specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard in this part, record the number of failures. For each failure 
record the date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.
    (ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard in this part, 
record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any 
emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions and any corrective 
actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner 
of operation.
    (b) Beginning on April 24, 2023, within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test or demonstration of compliance 
required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the 
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via

[[Page 11588]]

the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which 
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated 
using the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file 
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Data collected containing confidential business information 
(CBI). (i) The EPA will make all the information submitted through 
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use 
CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect 
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for 
some of the information submitted under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this 
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed 
to be CBI, to the EPA.
    (ii) The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for 
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not 
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2.
    (iv) The preferred method for CBI submittal is for it to be 
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer 
Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services. Electronic 
submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 
email address [email protected], and as described in this paragraph 
(b)(3), should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the 
attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. 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 [email protected] to request a file 
transfer link.
    (v) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention: Lead 
Acid Battery Sector Lead and Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. 
The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. 
Any CBI markings should not show through the outer wrapping.
    (vi) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (vii) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office 
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (c) You must submit a report of excess emissions and monitoring 
systems performance report and summary report according to Sec.  
60.7(c) and (d) to the Administrator semiannually. Report the number of 
failures to meet an applicable standard in this part. For each 
instance, report the date, time, cause, and duration of each failure. 
For each failure, the report must include a list of the affected 
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated 
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions. You must use the appropriate 
spreadsheet template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date 
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. 
The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, 
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Submit all 
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's 
CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information 
submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice 
to you. As stated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, do not use CEDRI 
to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI 
cannot later be claimed CBI. If you claim CBI, submit the report 
following description in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The same 
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to CEDRI as described in 
this section.
    (d) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by

[[Page 11589]]

circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its 
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (f) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
7. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (h)(109);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(110);
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(3); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (n)(4).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (109) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 
2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1625(b); table 3 to subpart LLLLL; 
63.7823(c) through (e), 63.7833(g); 63.11423(c).
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (4) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, 
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e); 63.864(e); 63.7525(j); 63.8450(e); 
63.8600(e); 63.9632(a); 63.9804(f); 63.11224(f); 63.11423(e).
* * * * *

Subpart PPPPP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources

0
8. Section 63.11421 is revised and republished to read as follows:

Sec.  63.11421  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lead 
acid battery manufacturing plant or a lead acid battery component 
manufacturing plant that is an area source of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) emissions.
    (b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. 
The affected source is each plant that is either a lead acid battery 
manufacturing plant or a lead acid battery component manufacturing 
plant. For each lead acid battery manufacturing plant, the affected 
source includes all grid casting facilities, paste mixing facilities, 
three-process operation facilities, lead oxide manufacturing 
facilities, lead reclamation facilities, and any other lead-emitting 
operation that is associated with the lead acid battery manufacturing 
plant. For each lead acid battery component manufacturing plant, the 
affected source includes all grid casting facilities, paste mixing 
facilities, three-process operation facilities, and lead oxide 
manufacturing facilities.
    (1) A lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected source is 
existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the 
affected source on or before April 4, 2007.
    (2) A lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected source is new 
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source 
after April 4, 2007.
    (3) A lead acid battery component manufacturing plant affected 
source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of 
the affected source on or before February 23, 2022.
    (4) A lead acid battery component manufacturing plant affected 
source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the 
affected source after February 23, 2022.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research and development 
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to 
obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the 
previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of 
this subpart.
    (e) For lead acid battery component manufacturing plants, you are 
exempt from the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.11422 through 63.11427 if 
the conditions of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section are 
met.
    (1) The grid casting facility, paste mixing facility, three-process 
operation facility, or lead oxide manufacturing facility is subject to 
another subpart under this part.
    (2) You control lead emissions from the grid casting facility, 
paste mixing facility, three-process operation facility, or lead oxide 
manufacturing facility in compliance with the standards specified in 
the applicable subpart.
    (3) The other applicable subpart under this part does not exempt 
the grid casting facility, paste mixing facility, three-process 
operation facility, or lead oxide manufacturing facility from the 
emission limitations or work practice requirements of that subpart. 
This means you comply with all applicable emissions limitations and 
work practice standards under the other subpart (e.g., you install and 
operate the required air pollution controls or have implemented the 
required work practice to reduce lead emissions to levels specified by 
the applicable subpart).

0
9. Section 63.11422 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.11422  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate a lead acid battery manufacturing plant 
existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the 
applicable provisions in this subpart by no later than July 16, 2008, 
except as specified

[[Page 11590]]

in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section.
    (b) If you start up a new lead acid battery manufacturing plant 
affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance 
with the applicable provisions in this subpart not later than July 16, 
2007, except as specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this 
section.
    (c) If you start up a new lead acid battery manufacturing plant 
affected source after July 16, 2007, but on or before February 23, 
2022, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in 
this subpart upon startup of your affected source, except as specified 
in paragraphs (e) through (h) this section.
    (d) If you start up a new lead acid battery manufacturing plant or 
lead acid battery component manufacturing plant affected source after 
February 23, 2022, you must achieve compliance with the applicable 
provisions in this subpart not later than February 23, 2023, or upon 
initial startup of your affected source, whichever is later.
    (e) Until February 23, 2026, lead acid battery manufacturing plant 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before February 23, 2023, must meet all the standards for lead and 
opacity in 40 CFR 60.372 and the requirements of Sec.  63.11423(a)(1).
    (f) Lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before February 23, 
2023, must comply with the requirements in Sec.  63.11423(a)(2) by 
February 23, 2026. All affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after February 23, 2023, must comply with the 
requirements in Sec.  63.11423(a)(2) by initial startup or February 23, 
2023, whichever is later.
    (g) Lead acid battery manufacturing plant affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before February 23, 
2023, must comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.11423(a)(3) by 
August 22, 2023. All affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after February 23, 2023, must comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  63.11423(a)(3) by initial startup or February 23, 
2023, whichever is later.
    (h) After February 23, 2023, lead acid battery manufacturing plant 
affected sources must comply with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction requirements specified in table 3 to this subpart except 
that you must comply with the recordkeeping requirements that table 3 
refers to in Sec.  63.11424(a)(5) by May 24, 2023.
    (i) If you own or operate a lead acid battery component 
manufacturing plant existing affected source, you must achieve 
compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by no later 
than February 23, 2026.

0
10. Section 63.11423 is revised and republished read as follows:

Sec.  63.11423  What are the standards and compliance requirements for 
new and existing sources?

    (a) You must meet all the standards for lead and opacity as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Until the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.11422(e), lead 
acid battery manufacturing plant affected sources must comply with 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) You meet all the standards for lead and opacity in 40 CFR 
60.372 and the requirements of paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (b), and 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (ii) You comply with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.11422(f) or (i), you must meet each emission 
limit in table 1 to this subpart and each opacity standard in table 2 
to this subpart that applies to you; you must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), (c), and (d) of this section; and you must 
also comply with the recordkeeping and electronic reporting 
requirements in Sec.  63.11424(a)(6) and (7) and (b).
    (3) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.11422(g) or (i), you must comply with the 
monitoring requirements in paragraph (e) of this section, the 
recordkeeping and electronic reporting requirements in Sec.  
63.11424(a)(1) through (5) and (c) through (f), and the definition of 
lead reclamation in Sec.  63.11426.
    (4) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts 
to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard in 
this part have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is 
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements 
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the source.
    (5) When two or more facilities at the same plant (except the lead 
oxide manufacturing facility) are ducted to a common control device, an 
equivalent standard for the total exhaust from the commonly controlled 
facilities must be determined using equation 1 to this paragraph (a)(5) 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.004

Where:

Se = is the equivalent standard for the total exhaust 
stream, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Sa = is the actual standard for each exhaust stream 
ducted to the control device, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
N = is the total number of exhaust streams ducted to the control 
device.
Qsda = is the dry standard volumetric flow rate of the 
effluent gas stream from each facility ducted to the control device, 
dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
QsdT = is the total dry standard volumetric flow rate of 
all effluent gas streams ducted to the control device, dscm/hr 
(dscf/hr).

    (b) As specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet 
the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) For any emissions point controlled by a scrubbing system, you 
must meet the requirements in 40 CFR 60.373.
    (2) For any emissions point controlled by a fabric filter, you must 
meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and either 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section. Fabric filters equipped 
with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or other secondary 
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.

[[Page 11591]]

    (i) You must perform semiannual inspections and maintenance to 
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes 
inspection of structural and filter integrity. You must record the 
results of these inspections.
    (ii) You must install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop 
monitoring device to measure the differential pressure drop across the 
fabric filter during all times when the process is operating. The 
pressure drop must be recorded at least once per day. If a pressure 
drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges as specified 
by the manufacturer, you must record the incident and take immediate 
corrective actions. You must also record the corrective actions taken. 
You must submit a monitoring system performance report in accordance 
with Sec.  63.10(e)(3).
    (iii) You must conduct a visible emissions observation at least 
once per day while the process is in operation to verify that no 
visible emissions are occurring at the discharge point to the 
atmosphere from any emissions source subject to the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section. If visible emissions are detected, you 
must record the incident and conduct an opacity measurement in 
accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the results of 
each opacity measurement. If the measurement exceeds the applicable 
opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), you must submit this 
information in an excess emissions report required under Sec.  
63.10(e)(3).
    (iv) Fabric filters equipped with a HEPA filter or other secondary 
filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) If you are using a pressure drop monitoring device to measure 
the differential pressure drop across the fabric filter in accordance 
with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, you must record the pressure 
drop at least once per week. If a pressure drop is observed outside of 
the normal operational ranges as specified by the manufacturer, you 
must record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You 
must also record the corrective actions taken. You must submit a 
monitoring system performance report in accordance with Sec.  
63.10(e)(3).
    (B) If you are conducting visible emissions observations in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, you must conduct 
such observations at least once per week and record the results in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. If visible 
emissions are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an 
opacity measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must 
record the results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement 
exceeds the applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), 
you must submit this information in an excess emissions report required 
under Sec.  63.10(e)(3).
    (c) As specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet 
the performance testing requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) 
of this section.
    (1) Existing sources are not required to conduct an initial 
performance test if a prior performance test was conducted using the 
same methods specified in this section and either no process changes 
have been made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results 
of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably 
demonstrate compliance with this subpart despite process changes.
    (2) Sources without a prior performance test, as described in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, must conduct an initial performance 
test using the methods specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) 
of this section.
    (i) EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 
must be used to determine the lead concentration (CPb) and the 
volumetric flow rate (Qsda) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and 
the sample volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 
dscm (30 dscf).
    (ii) EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and the 
procedures in Sec.  63.6(h) must be used to determine opacity. The 
opacity numbers must be rounded off to the nearest whole percentage. 
Or, as an alternative to Method 9, you may use ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) with the caveats in 
paragraphs (c)(4)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
    (A) 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).
    (B) 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.
    (C) You must follow the recordkeeping 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.
    (D) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) 
independent technology users apply the software to determine the 
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (E) 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.
    (iii) When different operations in a three-process operation 
facility are ducted to separate control devices, the lead emission 
concentration (C) from the facility must be determined using equation 2 
to this paragraph (c)(2)(iii) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.005

Where:

C = concentration of lead emissions for the entire facility, mg/dscm 
(gr/dscf).
Ca = concentration of lead emissions from facility ``a,'' mg/dscm 
(gr/dscf).
Qsda = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from facility 
``a,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
n = total number of control devices to which separate operations in 
the facility are ducted.

    (iv) For a lead oxide manufacturing facility, the lead emission 
rate must be determined as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(A) and 
(B) of this section.
    (A) The emission rate (E) from lead oxide manufacturing facility 
must be

[[Page 11592]]

computed for each run using equation 3 to this paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A) 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.006

Where:

E = emission rate of lead, mg/kg (lb/ton) of lead charged.
CPbi = concentration of lead from emission point ``i,'' 
mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission 
point ``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
M = number of emission points in the affected facility.
P = lead feed rate to the facility, kg/hr (ton/hr).
K = conversion factor, 1.0 mg/mg (7000 gr/lb).

    (B) The average lead feed rate (P) must be determined for each run 
using equation 4 to this paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.007

Where:

N = number of lead ingots charged.
W = average mass of the lead ingots, kg (ton).
[Theta] = duration of run, hr.

    (3) In conducting the initial performance tests required in Sec.  
63.7, you must use as reference methods and procedures the test methods 
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 or other methods and procedures as 
specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.  63.7(f).
    (4) After the initial performance test described in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section, you must conduct subsequent 
performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate compliance with each 
applicable emissions limitations and opacity standards. Within three 
years of February 23, 2023, performance testing must be conducted for 
each affected source subject to an applicable emissions limitation in 
tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that has not had a performance test 
within the last 5 years, except as described in paragraph (c)(6) of 
this section. Thereafter, subsequent performance tests for each 
affected source must be completed no less frequently than every 5 years 
from the date the emissions source was last tested.
    (5) In lieu of conducting subsequent performance tests for each 
affected source, you may elect to group similar affected sources 
together and conduct subsequent performance tests on one representative 
affected source within each group of similar affected sources. The 
determination of whether affected sources are similar must meet the 
criteria in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. If you decide to test 
representative affected sources, you must prepare and submit a testing 
plan as described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section.
    (i) If you elect to test representative affected sources, the 
affected sources that are grouped together must be of the same process 
type (e.g., grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations) and 
also have the same type of air pollution control device (e.g., fabric 
filters). You cannot group affected sources from different process 
types or with different air pollution control device types together for 
the purposes of this section.
    (ii) The results of the performance test conducted for the affected 
source selected as representative of a group of similar affected 
sources will represent the results for each affected source within the 
group. In the performance test report, all affected sources in the 
group will need to be listed.
    (iii) If you plan to conduct subsequent performance tests on 
representative emission units, you must submit a test plan. This test 
plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority for 
review and approval no later than 90 days prior to the first scheduled 
performance test. The test plan must contain the information specified 
in paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify 
all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission 
units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the 
emission unit that will be the representative unit for that group and 
subject to performance testing.
    (B) A list of the process type and type of air pollution control 
device on each emission unit.
    (C) A date of last test for each emission unit and a schedule 
indicating when you will conduct performance tests for each emission 
unit within the representative groups.
    (iv) If you conduct subsequent performance tests on representative 
emission units, the unit with the oldest test must be tested first, and 
each subsequent performance test must be performed for a different unit 
until all units in the group have been tested. The order of testing for 
each subsequent test must proceed such that the unit in the group with 
the least recent performance test is the next unit to be tested.
    (6) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. You must 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. You must make available to the Administrator in the test 
report, records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 
performance tests.
    (d) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.11422(f) or (i), you must prepare and, at all 
times, operate according to a fugitive dust mitigation plan that 
describes in detail the measures that will be put in place and 
implemented to control fugitive dust emissions in the lead oxide 
unloading and storage areas. You must prepare a fugitive dust 
mitigation plan according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) You must submit the fugitive dust mitigation plan to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval when 
initially developed and any time changes are made.
    (2) The fugitive dust mitigation plan must at a minimum include the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Cleaning lead oxide unloading and storage areas. Surfaces 
traversed during vehicular material transfer activity in

[[Page 11593]]

lead oxide unloading and storage areas must be cleaned at least once 
per month, by wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a filter rated by the 
manufacturer to achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency for 0.3 micron 
particles in a manner that does not generate fugitive lead dust, except 
when sand or a similar material has been spread on the area to provide 
traction on ice or snow.
    (ii) Spills in lead oxide unloading and storage areas. For any leak 
or spill that occurs during the unloading and storage process, complete 
washing or vacuuming the area to remove all spilled or leaked lead 
bearing material within 2 hours of the leak or spill occurrence.
    (iii) Materials storage. Dust forming materials (that contain lead 
or lead compounds) must be stored in sealed, leak-proof containers or 
in a total enclosure.
    (iv) Records. The fugitive dust mitigation plan must specify that 
records be maintained of all cleaning performed under paragraph 
(d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (e) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.11422(g) or (i), you must meet the monitoring 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) For any emissions point controlled by a scrubbing system, you 
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device(s) 
that measures and records the liquid flow rate and pressure drop across 
the scrubbing system(s) at least once every 15 minutes. The monitoring 
device must have an accuracy of 5 percent over its 
operating range. The operating liquid flow rate must be maintained 
within 10 percent of the average liquid flow rate during 
the most recent performance test. If a liquid flow rate or pressure 
drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges as you must 
record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You must 
also record the corrective actions taken. You must submit an excess 
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report and 
summary report required under Sec.  63.11424(c).
    (2) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter without a 
secondary filter must meet the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and 
(ii) of this section and either paragraph (e)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) You must perform quarterly inspections and maintenance to 
ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes 
inspection of structural and filter integrity.
    (ii) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions 
specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) or (D) of this section for a 
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one 
replacement fabric filter onsite at all times for that process or 
fabric filter control device. The characteristics of the replacement 
filters must be the same as the current fabric filters in use or have 
characteristics that would achieve equal or greater emission 
reductions.
    (iii) Install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop monitoring 
device to measure the differential pressure drop across the fabric 
filter during all times when the process is operating. The pressure 
drop must be recorded at least twice per day (at least 8 hours apart) 
if the results of the most recent performance test indicate that 
emissions are greater than 50 percent of the lead emissions limit in 
table 1 to this subpart. The pressure drop must be recorded at least 
once per day if the results of the most recent performance test 
indicate that emissions are less than or equal to 50 percent of the 
lead emissions limit in table 1. If a pressure drop is observed outside 
of the normal operational ranges, you must record the incident and take 
immediate corrective actions. You must submit an excess emissions and 
continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report 
required under Sec.  63.11424(c). You must also record the corrective 
actions taken and verify pressure drop is within normal operational 
range. These corrective actions may include but are not limited to 
those provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through (D) of this 
section.
    (A) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn 
or broken filters.
    (B) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the 
control device.
    (C) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other 
control devices.
    (D) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
    (iv) Conduct a visible emissions observation using EPA Method 9 or 
EPA Method 22 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 while the process is in 
operation to verify that no visible emissions are occurring at the 
discharge point to the atmosphere from any emissions source subject to 
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. The visible 
emissions observation must be conducted at least twice daily (at least 
6 hours apart) if the results of the most recent performance test 
indicate that emissions are greater than 50 percent of the lead 
emissions limit in table 1 to this subpart. The visible emissions 
observation must be conducted at least once per day if the results of 
the most recent performance test indicate that emissions are less than 
or equal to 50 percent of the lead emissions limit in table 1. If 
visible emissions are detected, you must record the incident and submit 
this information in an excess emissions and continuous monitoring 
system performance report and summary report required under Sec.  
63.11424(c) and take immediate corrective action. You must also record 
the corrective actions taken. These corrective actions may include but 
are not limited to those provided in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(A) through 
(D) of this section.
    (3) Emissions points controlled by a fabric filter equipped with a 
secondary filter, such as a HEPA filter, must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section and either paragraph 
(e)(3)(iii) or (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must perform the inspections required in paragraph 
(e)(2)(i) of this section quarterly.
    (ii) If it is not possible for you to take the corrective actions 
specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) or (D) of this section for a 
process or fabric filter control device, you must keep at least one 
replacement primary fabric filter and one replacement secondary filter 
onsite at all times for that process or fabric filter control device. 
The characteristics of the replacement filters must be the same as the 
current fabric filters in use or have characteristics that would 
achieve equal or greater emission reductions.
    (iii) You must perform the pressure drop monitoring requirements in 
paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section. You may perform these 
requirements once weekly rather than once or twice daily.
    (iv) You must perform the visible emissions observation 
requirements in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section. You may perform 
these requirements weekly rather than once or twice daily.
    (4) Beginning no later than the applicable compliance date 
specified in Sec.  63.11422(g) or (i), if you operate a bag leak 
detection system, that system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (ix) of this section. 
Emission points controlled by a fabric filter equipped that are 
monitored with a bag leak detection system meeting the specifications 
and requirements in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (ix) of this section 
may have the inspections required in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 
section performed semiannually.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be

[[Page 11594]]

capable of detecting particulate matter as lead emissions at 
concentrations at or below the values in table 1 to this subpart, as 
applicable to the process for which the fabric filter is used to 
control emissions. Where the fabric filter is used as a control device 
for more than one process, the lowest applicable value in table 1 must 
be used.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative particulate matter loadings.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate 
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (iv) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in 
a manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14) and the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the 
system.
    (v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (vi) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating 
procedures manual required under paragraph (e)(4)(ix) of this section. 
You cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or 
decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period 
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that 
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition.
    (vii) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, you must install the bag leak detector downstream of the fabric 
filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (ix) You must develop a standard operating procedures manual for 
the bag leak detection system that includes procedures for making 
system adjustments and a corrective action plan, which specifies the 
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system 
alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a minimum, the 
procedures that you will use to determine and record the time and cause 
of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize 
emissions as specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ix)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (A) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be 
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (B) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the 
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to, 
those listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(ix)(B)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (3) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (4) Sealing off defective baghouse compartment.
    (5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (6) Shutting down the process producing the lead emissions.
    (5) For continuous monitoring subject to the requirements of Sec.  
63.8(d)(2) to develop and implement a continuous monitoring system 
quality control program, you must keep these written procedures on 
record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source 
is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made 
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the 
performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e., 
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be 
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for 
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of 
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.  
63.8(d)(2).

0
11. Section 63.11424 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.11424  What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for this subpart?

    (a) You must keep the records specified in this section according 
to the applicable compliance date in Sec.  63.11422(f) and (g) or (i) 
and maintain them in a format readily available for review onsite for a 
period of 5 years.
    (1) Records of pressure drop values and the liquid flow rate from 
the monitoring required in Sec.  63.11423(e)(1) for scrubbing systems.
    (2) Records of fabric filter inspections and maintenance activities 
required in Sec.  63.11423(e)(2)(i) or (e)(3)(i).
    (3) Records required under Sec.  63.11423(e)(2)(iii) or (e)(3)(iii) 
of fabric filter pressure drop, pressure drop observed outside of 
normal operating ranges as specified by the manufacturer, and 
corrective actions taken.
    (4) Records of the required visible emissions observations in Sec.  
63.11423(e)(2)(iv) or (e)(3)(iv).
    (5) You must keep the records of failures to meet an applicable 
standard in this part as specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard in this part, record the number of failures. For each failure 
record the date, time, cause, and duration of each failure.
    (ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard in this part, 
record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any 
emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions and any corrective 
actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner 
of operation.
    (6) If a bag leak detection system is used under Sec.  
63.11423(e)(4), for a period of 5 years keep the records, specified in 
paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (ii) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the 
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (iii) All records of inspections and maintenance activities 
required under Sec.  63.11423(e)(4).
    (7) Records of all cleaning required as part of the practices 
described in the fugitive dust mitigation plan required under Sec.  
63.11423(d)(2)(iii) for the control of fugitive dust emissions.
    (b) Beginning on April 24, 2023, within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test or demonstration of compliance 
required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the 
performance test following the procedures specified in Sec.  63.9(k) 
and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://

[[Page 11595]]

www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-
tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. If a performance test 
consists only of opacity measurements, reporting using the ERT and 
CEDRI is not required.
    (3) Data collected containing confidential business information 
(CBI). All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Do 
not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Anything 
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do not 
expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI 
claim for some of the information submitted under paragraph (b)(1) or 
(2) of this section, you must submit a complete file, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated 
using the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the 
XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. The preferred method to 
submit 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 [email protected], and as described in this paragraph 
(b)(3), 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 [email protected] to request a 
file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the postal 
service, submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Sector Lead, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. Under CAA section 114(c), 
emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA 
is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, 
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly 
available.
    (c) Beginning on February 23, 2024, or once the report template for 
this subpart has been available on the CEDRI website for one year, 
whichever date is later, you must submit a report of excess emissions 
and monitoring systems performance report and summary report according 
to Sec. Sec.  63.9(k) and 63.10(e)(3) to the Administrator 
semiannually. Report the number of failures to meet an applicable 
standard in this part. For each instance, report the date, time, cause, 
and duration of each failure. For each failure, the report must include 
a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. You 
must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI 
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the CEDRI website for this subpart. The date report templates become 
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. Unless the Administrator 
or delegated state agency or other authority has approved a different 
schedule for submission of reports, the report must be submitted by the 
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which 
the report is submitted. Submit all reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which 
can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA 
will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the 
public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit 
information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot 
later be claimed CBI. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of 
CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim, follow the requirements 
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The same file with the 
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described 
earlier in this paragraph (c).
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
12. Section 63.11425 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.11425  What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    (a) The provisions in subpart A of this part, that are applicable 
to this subpart are specified in table 3 to this subpart.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.11426 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.11426  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec.  
63.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of subpart A of this 
part, and in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the 
exhaust of a fabric filter (baghouse) in order to detect bag leaks and 
other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is 
not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light 
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously 
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Grid casting facility means a facility which includes all lead 
melting pots, pots that remelt scrap from onsite lead acid battery 
manufacturing processes, and machines used for casting the grid used in 
lead acid batteries.
    Lead acid battery component manufacturing plant means any plant 
that does not produce a final lead acid battery product but at which 
one or more of the following processes is conducted to develop a 
product for use in lead acid batteries: grid casting, paste mixing, 
three-process operations, and lead oxide manufacturing.
    Lead acid battery manufacturing plant means any plant that produces 
a storage battery using lead and lead compounds for the plates and 
sulfuric acid for the electrolyte.
    Lead oxide manufacturing facility means a facility that produces 
lead oxide from lead for use in lead acid batteries, including lead 
oxide production and product recovery

[[Page 11596]]

operations. Local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts 
serving lead oxide production areas are not part of the lead oxide 
manufacturing facility.
    Lead reclamation facility means a facility that casts remelted lead 
scrap generated by onsite lead acid battery manufacturing processes 
into lead ingots for use in the battery manufacturing process, and 
which is not a furnace affected under subpart X of this part. Lead 
scrap remelting processes that are used directly (not cast into an 
ingot first) in a grid casting facility or a three-process operations 
facility are parts of those facilities and are not part of a lead 
reclamation facility.
    Other lead-emitting operation means any operation at a plant 
involved in the manufacture of lead acid batteries from which lead 
emissions are collected and ducted to the atmosphere and which is not 
part of a grid casting, lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation, 
paste mixing, or three-process operation facility, or a furnace 
affected under subpart X of this part. These operations also include 
local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts serving lead 
oxide production areas.
    Paste mixing facility means a facility including lead oxide 
storage, conveying, weighing, metering, and charging operations; paste 
blending, handling, and cooling operations; and plate pasting, takeoff, 
cooling, and drying operations.
    Three-process operation facility means a facility including those 
processes involved with plate stacking, burning or strap casting, and 
assembly of elements into the battery case.
    Total enclosure means a containment building that is completely 
enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent exposure to the 
elements and that has limited openings to allow access and egress for 
people and vehicles.

0
14. Section 63.11427 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory 
text and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.11427  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(5) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA 
and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

0
15. Table 1 to subpart PPPPPP of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63--Emission Limits

    As stated in Sec.  63.11423(a)(2), you must comply with the 
emission limits in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For . . .                         You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each new or existing grid        Emit no more than 0.08 milligram of
 casting facility.                   lead per dry standard cubic meter
                                     of exhaust (0.000035 gr/dscf).
2. Each new or existing paste       Emit no more than 0.1 milligram of
 mixing facility.                    lead per dry standard cubic meter
                                     of exhaust (0.0000437 gr/dscf); or
                                     emit no more than 0.9 gram of lead
                                     per hour (0.002 lbs/hr) total from
                                     all paste mixing operations.
3. Each new or existing three-      Emit no more than 1.0 milligram of
 process operation facility.         lead per dry standard cubic meter
                                     of exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
4. Each new or existing lead oxide  Emit no more than 5.0 milligram of
 manufacturing facility.             lead per kilogram of lead feed
                                     (0.010 lb/ton).
5. Each new or existing lead        Emit no more than 0.45 milligram of
 reclamation facility.               lead per dry standard cubic meter
                                     of exhaust (0.000197 gr/dscf).
6. Each new or existing other lead- Emit no more than 1.0 milligram of
 emitting operation.                 lead per dry standard cubic meter
                                     of exhaust (0.000437 gr/dscf).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
16. Table 2 to subpart PPPPPP of part 63 is added to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63--Opacity Standards

    As stated in Sec.  63.11423(a)(2), you must comply with the opacity 
standards in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Any gases emitted must not exceed .
             For . . .                               . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each new or existing facility    0 percent opacity (measured
 other than a lead reclamation       according to EPA Method 9 of
 facility.                           appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and
                                     rounded to the nearest whole
                                     percentage or measured according to
                                     EPA Method 22 of appendix A to 40
                                     CFR part 60).
2. Each new or existing lead        5 percent opacity (measured
 reclamation facility.               according to EPA Method 9 and
                                     rounded to the nearest whole
                                     percentage).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
17. Table 3 to subpart PPPPPP of part 63 is added to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to This Subpart

    As required in Sec.  63.11425, you must comply with the 
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (subpart A of this part) 
as shown in the following table.

[[Page 11597]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Subject           Applies to this subpart?         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1...............................  Applicability.........  Yes.........................  .....................
63.2...............................  Definitions...........  Yes.........................  .....................
63.3...............................  Units and               ............................  .....................
                                      Abbreviations.
63.4...............................  Prohibited Activities   Yes.........................  .....................
                                      and Circumvention.
63.5...............................  Preconstruction Review  No..........................  .....................
                                      and Notification
                                      Requirements.
63.6(a) through (d)................  Compliance with         Yes.........................  .....................
                                      Standards and
                                      Maintenance
                                      Requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(i)......................  General Duty to         No..........................  Section
                                      Minimize Emissions.                                   63.11423(a)(3)
                                                                                            specifies general
                                                                                            duty requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).....................  Requirement to correct  No..........................  .....................
                                      malfunctions as soon
                                      as possible.
63.6(e)(1)(iii)....................  Enforceability of       Yes.........................  .....................
                                      requirements
                                      independent of other
                                      regulations.
63.6(e)(3).........................  SSM Plans.............  No..........................  This subpart does not
                                                                                            require a startup,
                                                                                            shutdown, and
                                                                                            malfunction plan.
63.6(f)(1).........................  Compliance Except       No..........................  .....................
                                      During SSM.
63.6(f)(2) and (3).................  Methods for             Yes.........................  .....................
                                      determining
                                      compliance.
63.6(g)............................  Use of an alternative   Yes.........................  .....................
                                      nonopacity emission
                                      standard.
63.6(h)(1).........................  SSM Exemption.........  No..........................  .....................
63.6(h)(2) through (9), (i) through  Compliance with         Yes.........................  .....................
 (j).                                 opacity/visible
                                      emission standards,
                                      compliance extensions
                                      and exemptions.
63.7(a) through (d), (e)(2) and      Performance Testing     Yes.........................  .....................
 (3), (f) through (h).                Requirements.
63.7(e)(1).........................  Conditions for          No..........................  Requirements for
                                      conducting                                            performance test
                                      performance tests.                                    conditions are found
                                                                                            in Sec.
                                                                                            63.11423(c)(7).
63.8(a), (b), (c)(1)(ii), (d)(1)     Monitoring              Yes.........................  .....................
 and (2), (e) through (g).            Requirements.
63.8(c)(1)(i)......................  General duty to         No..........................  Section
                                      minimize emissions                                    63.11423(a)(3)
                                      and CMS operation.                                    specifies general
                                                                                            duty requirements.
63.8(c)(1)(iii)....................  Requirement to develop  No..........................  .....................
                                      SSM Plan for CMS.
63.8(d)(3).........................  Written procedures for  No..........................  .....................
                                      CMS.
63.9...............................  Notification            Yes.........................  .....................
                                      Requirements.
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(iii),       Recordkeeping and       Yes.........................  .....................
 (b)(2)(vi) through (ix), (b)(3),     Reporting
 (c)(1) through (14), (d)(1)          Requirements.
 through (4), (e), (f).
63.10(b)(2)(i).....................  Recordkeeping of        No..........................  .....................
                                      occurrence and
                                      duration of startups
                                      and shutdowns.
63.10(b)(2)(ii)....................  Recordkeeping of        No..........................  Section
                                      failures to meet a                                    63.11424(a)(5)
                                      standard.                                             specifies these
                                                                                            requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)............  Actions taken to        No..........................  .....................
                                      minimize emissions
                                      during SSM.
63.10(c)(15).......................  Use of SSM Plan.......  No..........................  .....................
63.10(d)(5)........................  ......................  No..........................  This subpart does not
                                                                                            require a startup,
                                                                                            shutdown, and
                                                                                            malfunction plan.
                                                                                            See Sec.
                                                                                            63.11424(c) for
                                                                                            excess emissions
                                                                                            reporting
                                                                                            requirements.
63.11..............................  Control Device          No..........................  This subpart does not
                                      Requirements.                                         require flares.
63.12..............................  State Authorities and   Yes.........................  .....................
                                      Delegations.
63.13..............................  Addresses.............  Yes.........................  .....................
63.14..............................  Incorporations by       Yes.........................  .....................
                                      Reference.
63.15..............................  Availability of         Yes.........................  .....................
                                      Information and
                                      Confidentiality.
63.16..............................  Performance Track       Yes.........................  .....................
                                      Provisions.
63.1(a)(5), (a)(7) through (9),      Reserved..............  No..........................  .....................
 (b)(2), (c)(3), (d), 63.6(b)(6),
 (c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(2),
 (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv),
 63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4),
 63.10(c)(2) through (4), (c)(9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-02989 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P