Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-02989

Rule2023-02989

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

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 23, 2023

Effective

February 23, 2023

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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

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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, 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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1d9d0dfc2d4df9fd0dcd0dfd5d0f1d4c1d09fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe969f908d9b90d09f939f909a9fbe9b8e9fd0999188">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

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/m<SUP>3</SUP> 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: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards</a> and
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission</a>. 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:
<bullet> Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
<bullet> The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
<bullet> 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'':
<bullet> Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
<bullet> Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original GACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
<bullet> Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
<bullet> Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards; and
<bullet> Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original GACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider.

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\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert</a>.
\4\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert</a>.
\6\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri">https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

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,
<a href="https://webstore.ansi.org">https://webstore.ansi.org</a>. 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 ``F

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 23, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.