requires the owner or operator to record the process information that
is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions
represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or
operator make available to the Administrator such records ``as may be
necessary to determine the condition of the performance test''
available to the Administrator upon request but does not specifically
require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is
proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes
explicit the requirement to record the information.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8 by changing the citation to 40 CFR 63.8(a), (b),
(c)(1)(ii), (d)(1) and (2), (e)-(g). We are also proposing to add rows
to the table for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including a ``no''
for these entries in column 3. The cross-references to the general duty
and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in
light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' for this entry
in column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the
General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable.
The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.11423(e)(3) text
that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence
is replaced with the following sentence: ``The program of corrective
action should be included in the plan required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2).''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 3)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10 by changing the citation to 40 CFR 63.10(a),
(b)(1), (b)(2)(iii), (vi-ix), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(14), (d)(1)-(4), (e),
(f). We are also proposing to add a row to the table for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' for this entry in column 3.
Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer
necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.

    We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' for this
entry in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such
requirements to 40 CFR 63.11424(a)(6). The regulatory text we are
proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in
that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a
record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process,
air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing
that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable
standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and
duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also
proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.11424(a)(7)(ii) and (iii) a requirement
that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for
which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and including a ``no'' for
this entry in column 3. When applicable, these provisions require
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan or to show that actions taken were
consistent with their SSM plan. These requirements are no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.11424(a)(7).
    We are proposing to add a row to the General Provisions table
(Table 3) for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' for this entry
in column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan or
records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA
is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no
longer be required, and therefore 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves
any useful purpose for affected units.
b. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities subject to the area source NESHAP at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports and semiannual excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance and summary reports through the same
procedures described above in section IV.D.b for the new NSPS subpart
KKa.
c. Lead Reclamation Definition Clarification
    The NESHAP references 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK for the definition
of a lead reclamation facility. The NSPS KK defines lead reclamation as
a facility (that is not an affected secondary lead smelting furnace
under 40 CFR 60, subpart L) that remelts Pb scrap and casts it into
ingots for use in the battery manufacturing process. As discussed in
Section IV.D.c, information available to the EPA indicates that no
facilities currently remelt Pb and cast it into ingots for use in the
battery manufacturing processes. However, to ensure that emissions are
controlled from any Pb that is recycled or reused, without being
remelted and cast into ingots, the EPA is revising the definition of
lead reclamation facility to clarify that the lead reclamation facility
does not include recycling of any type of finished battery or recycling
lead-bearing scrap that is obtained from non-category sources or from
any offsite operation. We are also proposing to clarify that recycling
of any type of finished battery or recycling lead-bearing scrap that is
obtained from non-category sources or from any offsite operation are
prohibited at the lead acid battery facility. In addition, the proposed
revised definition clarifies that lead reclamation facilities also do
not include the remelting of Pb metal scrap (such as unused grids or
scraps from creating grids) from on-site lead acid battery
manufacturing processes and that any such remelting is considered part
of the process where the Pb is remelted and used (i.e., grid casting).
d. Expanded Facility Applicability
    The original definition of the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category stated that lead acid battery manufacturing facilities
include any facility engaged in producing lead acid batteries. It also
explained that the category includes, but is not limited to, the
following manufacturing steps: Lead oxide production, grid casting,
paste mixing, and three-process operation (plate stacking, burning, and
assembly). The EPA is aware of some facilities that conduct one or more
of the lead acid battery manufacturing processes but do not produce the
final product of a battery, and thus are not considered to be in the
lead acid battery source category, and those processes are not subject
to the lead acid battery NESHAP. To ensure these processes utilizing Pb
are regulated to the same extent as those that are located at
facilities where the final battery products are produced, the EPA is
proposing to revise the applicability provisions in the NESHAP such
that facilities that process Pb to manufacture battery parts (such as
battery grids) or input material (such as lead oxide) will be subject
to the NESHAP regardless of whether or not they produce the end product
(i.e., lead acid batteries). The source category definition is broad
enough that the EPA determined it can encompass these facilities.
Available permit information indicates that lead acid battery
manufacturing processes being conducted at facilities other than where
the final batteries are made indicates that Pb emissions from the
processes are controlled and that those facilities can meet the
emissions limits in the NESHAP. However, these facilities will also
need to meet the compliance assurance measures of the proposed NESHAP,
including improved monitoring of emission points with fabric filters,
performance testing, reporting, and recordkeeping, as well as comply
with the proposed fugitive dust mitigation plan requirements.
Therefore, we expect there will be some cost impacts for these
facilities to comply with these compliance assurance measures and work
practices. We estimate the costs for compliance testing will be $23,000
to $34,000 per facility once every 5 years; and annual costs for
fugitive dust work practices of $0 to $13,000 per facility.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

a. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
    The final action for the NSPS is not expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
111(b)(1)(B)). Affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022, must comply
with all requirements of subpart KKa no later than the effective date
of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
b. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
    The final action for the NESHAP is not expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
112(d)(10). Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after February 23, 2022, must comply with all
requirements of subpart PPPPPP, including the final amendments, no
later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup,
whichever is later. Affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before February 23, 2022, must comply with certain
amendments, as specified below, no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule and other amendments, as specified
below, no later than 3 years after the effective date of the rule, or
upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to
continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP, until the applicable compliance date of the amended standards.
    For the following proposed revisions, for existing facilities we
are proposing a compliance date of no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule: Clarifications to the definition of
lead reclamation; requirements for electronic reporting of performance
test results and semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary reports; removal of the SSM exemptions;
revisions to the applicability provisions to include battery production
processes at facilities that do not produce the final end product
(i.e., batteries); and increased baghouse inspection frequency. Data
available to the EPA indicates that facilities are not performing lead
reclamation activities, and therefore the proposed clarification to the
definition of lead reclamation facility will not impact any operating
facilities. Therefore, we propose that no additional time is required
for facilities to comply with the revised definition of lead
reclamation. Regarding electronic reporting, our experience with
similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to
install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the
process of submitting performance test results electronically through
the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and
reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a time period of a
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally
necessary to accomplish these revisions. For the proposed revised SSM
revisions, since SSM plans have not been required to be developed or
followed, we do not believe that any additional time beyond the 180
days is needed for compliance with the proposed removal of the SSM
exemption. For the revisions to the applicability provisions to include
battery production processes at facilities that do not produce the
final end product of batteries, available information indicates that
these facilities can meet the emission limits with their current
controls and compliance assurance measures required by the NESHAP.
While these facilities will be newly required to perform the
recordkeeping and reporting required by the rule, the EPA is proposing
that 180 days is sufficient time to review the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, develop systems, and perform training for
gathering, submitting, and maintaining the required information.
Similarly, the EPA has determined that facilities would not need
additional time to meet the proposed requirement to perform baghouse
inspections more frequently. These facilities already perform the
inspections and are familiar with the inspection requirements, and they
will simply need to perform the inspections more often (monthly rather
than semi-annually).
    For the following proposed revisions, we are proposing a compliance
date of 3 years after the publication date of the final rule:
Requirements to develop and follow a fugitive dust mitigation plan and
requirements that performance testing be conducted at least once every
5 years. For fugitive dust mitigation, we are proposing to require
facilities to develop a mitigation plan, submit it for approval to
their air permitting authority, and follow the outlined procedures
within 3 years of publication of the final rule. The EPA anticipates it
would take approximately six months to develop a sound plan and another
six months for the relevant permitting authority to review and approve
the plan, with the potential for several revisions to the plan being
required. The implementation phase will involve training and may
involve specialized equipment or building and landscape changes (e.g.,
road paving) to accomplish the plan elements. The EPA anticipates this
phase could take 1 to 2 years, depending on the approved plan elements.
Therefore, the proposed compliance date for compliance with the
fugitive dust mitigation plan is 3 years. For the revised emissions
limits for existing paste mixing at large facilities and revised
numeric limits for grid casting and lead reclamation processes, we are
proposing a compliance date of no later than 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule. Facilities must also demonstrate
compliance with the revised numeric emissions limits for existing paste
mixing, grid casting, and lead reclamation processes within this 3-year
period. For the repeat performance tests, the requirement to test each
required emissions outlet (i.e., stack) will involve testing many
stacks at each facility, as the average facility has 8 stacks, with an
industry-wide range of 1 to 33 stacks. To coordinate the testing and to
provide flexibility to the industry to have stack testing performed
over time, rather than all at once, which will also help ensure the
appropriate testing vendors are available to the facilities in the
source category, we are proposing a compliance date for the initial
test of 3 years. For large facilities with fabric filters as a control
device without a secondary filter, a bag leak detection system is
required no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule.
    We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
    We are not expecting any new facilities to be built in the
foreseeable future, but if any new facilities are built

the proposed requirements in the new NSPS subpart KKa, would achieve an
estimated 0.08 tpy reduction of allowable lead emissions for a small
facility and an estimated 0.32 tpy reduction of allowable lead
emissions for a large facility compared to that of the current NSPS
subpart KK.
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
    The proposed revised Pb emission standard for paste mixing
operations at large lead acid battery sources in this action would
achieve an estimated 0.5 tpy reduction of Pb emissions. In addition,
the Agency is also proposing work practices to minimize fugitive lead
dust emissions and expects that these will achieve some unquantified Pb
reductions. We are also proposing several compliance assurance
requirements which will ensure compliance with the NESHAP and help
prevent noncompliant emissions of Pb. Furthermore, the Agency is
proposing revised Pb emission standards for grid casting and lead
reclamation facilities. The EPA does not expect to achieve reductions
in actual emissions with these two new standards; however, the new
standards will reduce the allowable emissions from those sources and
ensure that the emissions remain controlled and minimized moving
forward. As described above, we estimate that all facilities in the
source category are already meeting the revised emissions limits. The
proposed amendments will also include removal of the SSM exemptions. We
were unable to quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM
or the specific emissions reductions that would occur as a result of
this action. However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential
to reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable
standard during SSM periods.

B. What are the cost impacts?

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
    The costs for a new, reconstructed, and modified facility to comply
with the proposed regulatory requirements discussed above are described
in detail in section IV.B and are summarized below. As mentioned
previously in this preamble we do not expect any brand-new facilities
in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the actual costs for new sources
are expected to be zero since we do not expect any such sources.
However, we do expect that some existing facilities could undergo
modifications or reconstruction.
    Revised Emission Limit for Grid Casting: Incremental capital costs
for a small new, reconstructed, and modified source to install and
operate a fabric filter (BSER) compared to an impingement scrubber
(baseline) on grid casting operations are $53,000, with incremental
annual costs estimated to be $23,600. Incremental capital costs for a
large new, reconstructed, and modified baseline facility to install and
operate fabric filters (BSER) compared to impingement scrubbers
(baseline) on grid casting operations are estimated to be $86,000 with
incremental annual costs estimated to be $40,000.
    Revised Emission Limit for Lead Reclamation: Incremental capital
costs are estimated to be $17,000 for small and large new,
reconstructed, and modified sources to install fabric filters (BSER)
compared to impingement scrubbers (baseline) on lead reclamation
operations. Incremental annual costs for a small baseline facility to
install fabric filters (BSER) compared to impingement scrubbers
(baseline) are estimated to be $8,500. Incremental annual costs are
estimated to be $13,000 for a large baseline and model facility.
    Revised Emission Limit for Paste Mixing Operations: Capital Costs
for a new large facility to include secondary filters in their facility
design are $135,000. Annual costs are estimated to be $88,800 for a
large facility.
    Bag Leak Detection Requirements: For a new large facility to
install and operate bag leak detection systems, capital costs would be
approximately $802,000 per facility and annual costs would be
approximately $161,000 per facility.
    Performance Testing Requirements: We estimate that performance
testing for lead costs about $23,000 to test one stack and an
additional $5,500 to test each additional stack during the same testing
event.
    Work Practices to Minimize Fugitive Lead Dust: Estimated initial
costs for new facilities to develop a fugitive dust plan to minimize
fugitive lead dust emissions is $7,600 and annual costs to implement to
plan are approximately $13,000 per facility per year.
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
    The estimated costs for a theoretical new source to comply with the
NESHAP are the same as the costs described above (in section V.B.1)
under the NSPS KKa. The costs for compliance testing for existing
sources are estimated to be $0 to $181,000 per facility once every 5
years depending on number of stacks (equates to an average annual cost
of about $0 to $36,000 per facility). Total costs for testing for the
entire industry are estimated to be $1.3 million every 5 years (which
equates to an average annual cost of $260,000 per year for the entire
industry). Table 1 below shows the estimated costs and number of
facilities affected for all other proposed changes.

               Table 1--Estimated Costs for All Proposed Amendments Other Than Compliance Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total capital   Total annual      Number of
     Proposed requirement       costs for the   costs for the    facilities      Capital costs     Annual costs
                                  industry        industry        impacted       per facility      per facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Practices...............    \a\ $350,000        $381,000          \b\ 45   $7,600.........  $0 to $12,600.
Fabric Filter Inspections....               0          72,000              21  $0..............  $0 to $10,500.
Bag Leak Detection System           2,700,000         544,000              10  $0 to $814,000..  $0 to $164,000.
 Requirements.
Revised Limit for Paste               750,000         345,000               5  $150,000........  $69,000.
 Mixing.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for all proposed          3,800,000       1,340,000          \b\ 45  $0 to $996,000..  $0 to $294,000.
     requirements other than
     testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These are initial costs to create a fugitive dust plan. Total estimated costs to industry would be $350,000,
  or approximately $7,600 per facility.
\b\ This ``45'' includes 39 LAB NESHAP Manufacturing facilities and six facilities affected by the proposed
  applicability clarification described above.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, as
detailed in the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis
for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area
Source Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this
action. The economic impacts of the proposal are calculated as the
percentage of total annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate
parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the
direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of facilities while
presuming no impact on consumers. We estimate that none of the ultimate
parent owners affected by this proposal will incur total annualized
costs of 0.5 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic
impacts are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by
this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets
for affected products. The costs of the proposal are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

D. What are the benefits?

1. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKa
    The new standards for grid casting, lead reclamation and paste
mixing will reduce the allowable emissions from the new, reconstructed,
and modified sources and ensure that the emissions remain controlled
and minimized moving forward.
2. NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPPPP
    As described above, the proposed amendments would result in some
reductions in emissions of Pb. The proposed amendments also revise the
standards such that they apply at all times, which includes SSM
periods. We are also proposing several compliance assurance
requirements which will ensure compliance with the NESHAP and help
prevent noncompliant emissions of Pb. Furthermore, the proposed
requirements to submit reports and test results electronically will
improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
    Reducing emissions of lead dust is expected to reduce potential
exposures to nearby communities. A quantitative analysis would be
technically complicated, resource intensive and infeasible to perform
in the time available. For these reasons, we did not perform a
quantitative analysis. Rather, we qualitatively characterize the health
impacts of lead to convey an understanding of potential benefits. This
is presented in Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.

E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 and EPA policy direct the EPA, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on
minority populations (people of color) and low-income populations (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was
signed to advance racial equity and support underserved communities
through Federal government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The
EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of
people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and
risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental
consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or
programs and policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In
recognizing that people of color and low-income populations often bear
an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues
to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public health and
environmental effects of air pollution.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis which is an assessment of individual demographic
groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the
facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the
national average for the demographic indicators. Based on that
analysis, we found that the demographic profile within 5 km and 50 km
of the LAB facilities shows the following groups above the national
average: Hispanics, Ages 18-64, People living below the Poverty Level,
25 years old or greater without a High School Diploma, and People
living in Linguistic Isolation, as shown in Table 2. The methodology
and results of the demographic analysis are presented in more detail in
the memorandum, which is available in the docket, Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Area Sources.

    Table 2--Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources: Proximity
    Demographic Assessment Results--5 km and 50 km Study Area Radius
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Population    Population
                                               within  50   within  5 km
                                                km of 39        of 39
                                               facilities    facilities
                                                   (%)           (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Nationwide        Source Category
                                ----------------------------------------
Total Population...............  328,016,242    47,907,121     2,233,864
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   White and People of Color by Percent
                                ----------------------------------------
White..........................           60            52            37
People of Color................           40            48            63
                                ----------------------------------------
                                        People of Color by Percent
                                ----------------------------------------

African American...............           12            12            10
Native American................          0.7           0.3           0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes              19            25            43
 white and nonwhite)...........
Other and Multiracial..........            8            11             9
                                ----------------------------------------
                                            Income by Percent
                                ----------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............           13            12            14
Above Poverty Level............           87            88            86
                                ----------------------------------------
                                          Age Groups by Percent
                                ----------------------------------------
Age (Years) 0-17...............           22            22            23
Age (Years) 18-64..............           62            63            64
Age (Years) >=65...............           16            15            13
                                ----------------------------------------
                                           Education by Percent
                                ----------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High                12            14            19
 School Diploma................
Over 25 and with a High School            88            86            81
 Diploma.......................
                                ----------------------------------------
                                    Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                ----------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated........            5             7             9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in section IV.A, ambient air quality monitoring data
and modeling analyses indicate that ambient Pb concentrations near the
facilities are all below the NAAQS for Pb. The CAA identifies two types
of NAAQS; primary and secondary standards. Primary standards provide
public health protection, including protecting the health of
``sensitive'' populations such as asthmatics, children, and the
elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection
including protection against decreased visibility and damage to
animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.\12\ Both the primary and
secondary NAAQS for Pb are 0.15/m\3\ based on a 3-month rolling
average. The primary NAAQS are designed to protect public health with
an adequate margin of safety.\13\ Therefore, we conclude that the
emissions from lead acid battery area source facilities are not likely
to pose significant risks or impacts to human health if facilities are
complying with the NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the analyses. We are specifically interested in
receiving any information regarding developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that reduce Pb emissions.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    The EPA proposes to amend the 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by
reference for one VCS
     ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR requested for 40 CFR 60.374a(d)(2). This method is an
acceptable alternative to the EPA's Method 9 under specific conditions
stated in 40 CFR 60.374a(d)(2)(I) through (v). This test method
described the procedures to use the Digital Camera Opacity Techniques
(DCOT) to obtain and interpret the digital images in determining and
reporting plume opacity. It also describes procedures to certify the
DCOT.
    The EPA proposes to amend the 40 CFR 63.14 to incorporate by
reference for one VCS
     ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR requested for 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(4)(ii). This method is an
acceptable alternative to the EPA's Method 9 under specific conditions
stated in 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(4)(ii)(A) through (E). This test method
described the procedures to use the Digital Camera Opacity Techniques
(DCOT) to obtain and interpret the digital images in determining and
reporting plume opacity. It also describes procedures to certify the
DCOT.
    The ASTM documents are available from the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) at https://www.astm.org; by mail at 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared have been
assigned EPA ICR

numbers 1072.14 for the NSPS KKa and 2256.07 for the NESHAP. You can
find a copy of the ICRs in the docket for this rule, and they are
briefly summarized here. The ICRs are specific to information
collection associated with the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing source
category, through the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa and amendments to
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. We are proposing changes to the
testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, in the form of requiring performance tests
every 5 years and including the requirement for electronic submittal of
reports. In addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards
changed. The number of respondents was revised from 41 to 45 for the
NESHAP based on our review of operating permits and consultation with
industry representatives and state/local agencies. We are proposing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the new 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKa, including notifications of construction/
reconstruction, initial startup, conduct of performance tests, and
physical or operational changes; reports of opacity results,
performance test results and semiannual reports if excess emissions
occur or continuous emissions monitoring systems are used; and keeping
records of performance test results and pressure drop monitoring.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of lead acid battery
manufacturing sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: 45 facilities for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP and 0 facilities for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule
amendments, reports of performance tests, and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the new NSPS KKa and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this
ICR, is estimated to be 2,580 hours (per year). The average annual
burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be 66 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NSPS KKa and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be $174,000 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated
capital and operation and maintenance costs. The total average annual
Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be $3,380.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to OIRA[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than March 25, 2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses that own lead acid battery facilities. The Agency has
determined that there are nine small businesses subject to the
requirements of this action, and that eight of these small businesses
are estimated to experience impacts of less than 1 percent of their
revenues. The Agency estimates that one small business may experience
an impact of approximately 1.3 percent of their annual revenues once
every 5 years mainly due to the compliance testing requirements, with
this one small business representing approximately 11 percent of the
total number of affected small entities. The other four of the five
years, we estimate the costs would be less than 1 percent of annual
revenues for this one small business. Details of this analysis are
presented in Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Lead
Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the industries that would be affected by this action nor are there any
adverse health or environmental effects from this action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks Populations and Low-Income Populations

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's assessments of potential impacts to human
health are contained in section IV.A of this preamble. The proposed
work practices to minimize fugitive dust containing lead and the
proposed new and revised emission limits described in section IV.B and
IV.C will reduce actual and/or allowable lead emissions, thereby
reducing potential exposure to children, including the unborn.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) that are relevant to this action.
The Agency also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched
their databases. Searches were conducted for the EPA Methods 9, 12, and
29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified for
EPA Methods 12 and 29 for lead.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a
potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation data which meets the
requirements of the EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA
reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
    One voluntary consensus standard was identified as acceptable
alternative to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule. The
voluntary consensus standard ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method for
Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere''
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the following
conditions:
    1. During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification
procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT
vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color
and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such
as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree
stand).
    2. You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in section
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
    3. You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in Sec.
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets,
and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
    4. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    5. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and this letter
is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    The search identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for
this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that one candidate VCS (ASTM D4358-
94 (1999)) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations. Additional
information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the
memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Review of
Standards of Performance for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid
Battery, which is available in the docket for this action.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 68.3(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA to use alternative test
methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance specifications or procedures in the final
rule or any amendments. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the
proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section V.C and
V.E of this preamble. As discussed in section V.E of this preamble, we
performed a demographic analysis for the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category, which is an assessment of the proximity
of individual demographic groups living close to the facilities (within
50 km and within 5 km). Results of the demographic analysis indicate
that the following groups above the national average: Hispanics, Ages
18-64, People living below the Poverty Level, 25 years old or greater
without a High School Diploma, and People living in Linguistic
Isolation. However, based on analyses of emissions and available
ambient monitoring data (described in section IV.A of this preamble),
we conclude ambient Pb concentrations near the facilities are all below
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Pb and therefore
the sources are not likely to pose significant risks to human health.

Janet G. McCabe,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-03396 Filed 2-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P