[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73708-73722]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25586]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481; FRL-9630-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV78

New Source Performance Standards Review for Secondary Lead
Smelters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the Standards of Performance for secondary lead smelters
per the Agency's periodic review of the new source performance
standards required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). In this action, we are
proposing updates to the current New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for secondary lead smelters and proposing a new NSPS subpart
that applies to affected sources constructed, reconstructed, or
modified after the date of this proposed rule. For the current NSPS
subpart, we are proposing to revise the definitions of blast furnace,
reverberatory furnace, and pot furnace to more closely align with the
equipment definitions used in the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead smelting. We are
also proposing requirements for periodic performance tests for
particulate matter (PM) and incorporating revised monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, including electronic
reporting of performance tests, to be more consistent with the NESHAP.
For the new subpart, we are proposing updated PM and opacity emissions
limits for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces that reflect the
performance achieved by the best system for emissions reductions
(BSER). In the new subpart, we are proposing PM and opacity emissions
limits that apply at all times, including during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), and proposing initial and periodic PM
and opacity performance testing and the same equipment definitions,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements proposed for current NSPS
subpart.

DATES:
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2023.
Comments on the information collection provisions submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) are best assured of consideration by OMB if OMB receives a copy
of your comments on or before January 3, 2023.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before December 6, 2022, we will hold a virtual hearing. Please
refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting
and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0481, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-

2022-0481 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0481.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tonisha Dawson, 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Participation in virtual public hearing.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing
team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. If
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on December 16, 2022. The
hearing will convene at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude
at 5:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps or contact the public hearing
team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. The
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be December 13,
2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that
will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as described in
this section, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing
team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected] to
determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish
a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by
December 8, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations
without advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 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.
    Written Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once
submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information
you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. This type of information should be submitted as
discussed in the Submitting CBI section of this document.
    Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by
a written comment. The written comment is considered the official
comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA
public comment policy; information about CBI or multimedia submissions;
and general guidance on making effective comments.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital

storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, mark the
outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify
electronically within the digital storage media the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures
outlined in Written Comments section of this document. If you submit
any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and
note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in
the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the
email address [email protected], and as described above, should include
clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it
to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02),
OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481. The
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document 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:

ABR Association of Battery Recyclers
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM ASTM International
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EIA economic impact analysis
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ET Eastern Time
FR Federal Register
FTP file transfer protocol
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
IBR incorporate by reference
ICR information collection request
JPEG joint photographic experts group
mg/dscm milligram per dry standard cubic meter
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
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PBI Proprietary Business Information
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA regulatory impact analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR risk and technology review
SOP standard operating procedures
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunctions
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standard
WESP wet electrostatic precipitator

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and what are the current NSPS
requirements?
    C. What data and information were used to support this action?
    D. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
III. What actions are we proposing?
    A. NSPS Review and Proposed Revisions
    B. Proposal of NSPS Subpart La Without Startup, Shutdown,
Malfunctions Exemptions
    C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
    D. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    E. Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the secondary impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. 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)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source category that is the subject of this proposal is
comprised of the secondary lead smelters regulated under CAA section
111 New Source Performance Standards. The North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code for the source category is 331492.
The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers outlining the entities
that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards,
once promulgated, will be directly applicable to affected facilities
that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date
of publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register.
Federal, state, local and tribal government entities would not be
affected by this action.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps. Following

publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website.
    A memorandum showing the edits that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, proposed
in this action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0481). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also
will post a copy of these documents to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/secondary-lead-smelters-new-source-performance-standards-nsps.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The EPA's authority for this proposed 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'' new source performance
standards. 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 BSER for the regulated sources in the source category
and the degree of emission limitation achievable through application of
the BSER. The EPA must then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate
standards of performance for new sources that reflect that level of
stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the EPA from prescribing a
particular technological system that must be used to comply with a
standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or
combination of measures that will achieve the standard.
    Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA 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.

B. What is this source category and what are the current NSPS
requirements?

    Secondary lead smelters produce lead and lead alloys from lead-
bearing scrap material. Lead is used to make various construction,
medical, industrial, and consumer products such as batteries, glass, x-
ray protection gear, and various fillers. The secondary lead smelting
process consists of (1) pre-processing of lead bearing materials, (2)
melting lead metal and reducing lead compounds to lead metal in the
smelting furnace, and (3) refining and alloying the lead to customer
specifications.
    At secondary lead smelting facilities, blast and reverberatory
furnaces are used in the smelting processes, and pot furnaces are used
in the refining process. The processes vent PM emissions from blast and
reverberatory furnaces through ductwork to control devices. Emissions
of PM also occur at various points during the smelting process, such as
during charging and tapping of furnaces and refining processes. Based
on the NESHAP requirements, the process fugitive emissions require
hooding or negative-pressure enclosures to capture PM emissions before
they can be routed to control devices. Entrainment of dry materials in
ambient air due to material processing, vehicle traffic, wind erosion
from storage piles, and other activities can also be a source of PM
emissions. Secondary lead smelting facilities use a variety of control
devices (e.g., baghouses, gas scrubbers), often in combination, to
reduce PM and opacity emissions from process vent and process fugitive
sources. Facilities use suppression techniques (e.g., washing roadways,
wetting storage piles) and negative-pressure enclosures to reduce PM
emissions from fugitive dust sources.
    The EPA proposed the original NSPS (subpart L) for the secondary
lead smelting source category (40 CFR part 60, subpart L) on June 11,
1973 (38 FR 15406) and promulgated the NSPS on March 8, 1974 (39 FR
9308). The NSPS for secondary lead smelting as promulgated in 1974
regulates PM emissions from blast and reverberatory furnaces and also
specifies limits for visible emissions (opacity) for blast and
reverberatory furnaces and for pot (refining) furnaces. The EPA amended
subpart L on October 10, 1975, to remove a provision providing that the
failure to meet the NSPS emissions limits due to the presence of
uncombined water in the stack gases was not considered a violation.
    Subpart L specifies that owners or operators of affected facilities
must limit PM emissions from blast and reverberatory furnaces to not
more than 50 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) or 0.022
grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). Subpart L also specifies
that visible emissions must not exceed 20 percent opacity from blast or
reverberatory furnaces and 10 percent opacity from pot furnaces.
    Currently, there are 11 secondary lead smelting facilities in the
United States. Each facility operates furnaces that are subject to the
PM and opacity limits specified in subpart L.

C. What data and information were used to support this action?

    To support this action, the EPA created the list of existing
secondary lead smelting facilities by updating the facility list
developed to support the 2012 NESHAP for secondary lead smelting (40
CFR part 63, subpart X) with information obtained from the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI), Earthjustice, and the Association of Battery
Recyclers (ABR). To determine the control measures currently used to
control emissions from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces in the
industry, the EPA obtained facility operating permits issued by state
regulatory agencies which contained information regarding process
equipment, control devices, and applicable regulatory emissions limits.
The EPA also obtained reports of performance tests conducted to
demonstrate compliance with NESHAP subpart X from the EPA's WebFIRE and
from state regulatory agencies. Although the target pollutant of the
test reports was lead, the pollutant regulated under NESHAP subpart X,
some of the reports also provided PM emissions and opacity data for
blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces. The facility operating permits,
test reports, and a memorandum summarizing the available PM emissions
and opacity data are available in the public docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481).

D. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, 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 non-air quality health and environmental impact
and energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:
     Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current
standards are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any non-air 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 particular air pollution control measure or a level of
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission
reductions that the control measure or particular 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.
    See section II.C of this preamble for information on the specific
data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.

III. What actions are we proposing?

A. NSPS Review and Proposed Revisions

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to amend existing NSPS subpart
L to:
     Clarify the applicability dates.
     Update the definitions of blast, reverberatory and pot
furnaces to be more consistent with the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
X).
     Require initial and periodic compliance tests for PM
emissions consistent with the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X).
     Require monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements consistent with the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X).
     Require submission of electronic performance test reports.
    We solicit comment on the amendments to the existing NSPS subpart L
as described in the subsequent sections.
    The EPA is also proposing to establish a new subpart (40 CFR part
60, subpart La) that applies to affected sources that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after December 1, 2022.
In subpart La, EPA is proposing that the following emission standards
apply at all times, including periods of SSM:
     Limit PM emissions from blast and reverberatory furnaces
to 10 mg/dscm.
     Limit PM emissions from pot furnaces to 3 mg/dscm.
     Limit opacity of blast, reverberatory, and pot furnace
emissions to 0 percent.
    For subpart La, the EPA is proposing the same definitions, PM
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as
proposed for subpart L. In addition, we are proposing initial and
periodic opacity testing for subpart La.

1. Applicability
    For 40 CFR part 60, subpart L, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR
60.120 (Applicability and designation of affected facility) to clarify
that subpart L applies to affected sources that commence construction
or modification after June 11, 1973, but before December 1, 2022. For
subpart La, the EPA is proposing to add 40 CFR 60.120a (Applicability
and designation of affected facility) to specify that 40 CFR part 60,
subpart La, applies to affected sources that commence construction,
reconstruction, or modification after December 1, 2022.
2. Definitions
    In this action, the EPA is proposing to incorporate the definitions
shown in Table 1 of this preamble into 40 CFR 60.121 (Definitions) of
existing 40 CFR part 60, subpart L, and 40 CFR 60.121a (Definitions) of
the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart La. These proposed definitions are
intended to improve the clarity of the NSPS subparts and reduce
potential confusion among industry and regulatory agencies by aligning
the descriptions of the affected sources that would be regulated by 40
CFR part 60, subparts L and La, to be more consistent with the
definitions within 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, but still with some
slight differences (e.g., minimum temperatures) that we think are
appropriate, as shown in Table 1. These proposed changes do not affect
the applicability of existing subpart L.

                      Table 1--Process Equipment Definitions Proposed for Subpart L and La
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposed for subpart L
             Equipment                     Current              NESHAP subpart X                 and La
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blast furnace.....................  Any furnace used to    A smelting furnace          A smelting furnace
                                     recover metal from     consisting of a vertical    consisting of a vertical
                                     slag.                  cylinder atop a crucible,   cylinder atop a
                                                            into which lead-bearing     crucible, into which
                                                            charge materials are        lead-bearing charge
                                                            introduced at the top of    materials are introduced
                                                            the furnace and             at the top of the
                                                            combustion air is           furnace and combustion
                                                            introduced through          air is introduced
                                                            tuyeres at the bottom of    through tuyeres at the
                                                            the cylinder, and that      bottom of the cylinder,
                                                            uses coke as a fuel         and that lead compounds
                                                            source and that is          are chemically reduced
                                                            operated at such a          to elemental lead metal.
                                                            temperature in the
                                                            combustion zone (greater
                                                            than 980 Celsius) that
                                                            lead compounds are
                                                            chemically reduced to
                                                            elemental lead metal.
Reverberatory furnace.............  Includes the           A refractory-lined furnace  A refractory-lined
                                     following types of     that uses one or more       furnace that uses one or
                                     reverberatory          flames to heat the walls    more flames to heat the
                                     furnaces:              and roof of the furnace     walls and roof of the
                                     stationary,            and lead-bearing scrap to   furnace and lead-bearing
                                     rotating, rocking,     such a temperature          scrap such that lead
                                     and tilting.           (greater than 980           compounds are chemically
                                                            Celsius) that lead          reduced to elemental
                                                            compounds are chemically    lead metal.
                                                            reduced to elemental lead   Reverberatory furnaces
                                                            metal.                      include the following
                                                                                types: stationary,
                                                                                rotating, rocking, and
                                                                                tilting.
Pot furnace.......................  Not defined..........  Refining kettle means an    Pot furnace is a type of
                                                            open-top vessel that is     refining kettle, which
                                                            constructed of cast iron    is an open-top vessel
                                                            or steel and is             constructed of cast iron
                                                            indirectly heated from      or steel and is
                                                            below and contains molten   indirectly heated from
                                                            lead for the purpose of     below and contains
                                                            refining and alloying the   molten lead for the
                                                            lead. Included are pot      purpose of refining and
                                                            furnaces, receiving         alloying the lead.
                                                            kettles, and holding
                                                            kettles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA solicits comment on the proposed revisions to the process
equipment definitions for subparts L and proposed process equipment
definitions to be included in subpart La.
3. PM Standards of Performance
    In developing NSPS subpart L, the EPA identified the types of
controls used and the corresponding PM and opacity levels of blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnace emissions at secondary lead smelting
facilities (that were considered well controlled at the time) as
described in the 1973 background document titled, Group II--New Source
Performance Standards, which is available in the docket of this
proposed rule. Table 2 presents the BSER the EPA identified for blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnaces in 1973.

                  Table 2--BSER for 1975 NSPS Subpart L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Emissions source                    Control technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blast furnace..........................  Afterburner and Venturi
                                          scrubber--or--Fabric filter.
Reverberatory furnace..................  Venturi scrubber--or--Fabric
                                          filter.
Pot furnace............................  Venturi scrubber--or--Fabric
                                          filter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the PM emissions and opacity data available at that time,
the EPA established in subpart L, the following emissions limits for
blast and reverberatory furnaces:
     50 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, mg/dscm (0.022
grains per dry standard cubic feet, gr/dscf).
     20 percent opacity.
    When the EPA finalized subpart L, PM emissions data were not
available for pot furnaces; therefore, the EPA did not establish a PM
limit. However, sufficient data were available to establish an opacity
limit of 10 percent for pot furnaces in subpart L.
    As specified in section II.D of this preamble, CAA section 111
requires the EPA to review the BSER for the source category and
determine whether it is appropriate to revise the standards of
performance, including consideration of available information
indicating that emission limitations and percent reductions beyond
those required by the current standards are achieved in practice. In
making this determination for the secondary lead smelting source
category, the EPA considered the following information:
     Types of demonstrated control measures for reducing PM
emissions and opacity from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces.
     Available test data showing the levels of PM emissions and
opacity currently achieved for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces.
     Costs of implementing the PM and opacity controls.
    We solicit comment on the BSER analysis and the proposed standards
of

performance as explained in the subsequent sections.
a. PM and Opacity Control Measures
    For our BSER review, to determine the types of control measures
currently used in the secondary lead industry to reduce PM emissions
and opacity from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces, the EPA
obtained and reviewed operating permits issued by state regulatory
agencies for each secondary lead smelting facility in the United
States. The EPA's permit review identified that secondary lead smelting
facilities continue to use filtration (i.e., fabric filters or
baghouses), scrubbers, and afterburners to reduce PM emissions and
opacity from blast furnaces, and filtration and scrubbers to reduce PM
emissions and opacity from reverberatory furnaces. For pot furnaces,
the permit review identified the continued use of baghouses and
scrubbers to reduce opacity from furnace emissions. Three facilities
also use wet electrostatic precipitators (WESPs) to control furnace PM
emissions and opacity (two facilities control a combined gas stream of
reverberatory and pot furnace emissions using a WESP, and one facility
controls pot furnace emissions using a WESP). The memorandum
documenting the EPA's review of facility operating permits titled CAA
Section 111(b)(1)(B) Review Memorandum for Secondary Lead Smelters can
be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0481). The EPA seeks comment regarding the findings of our
permit review.
b. Available PM and Opacity Data
    To determine the current level of PM emissions and opacity
reduction achieved for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces, the EPA
reviewed facility performance test data obtained from WebFIRE, the
EPA's repository of performance test reports, and from state regulatory
agencies. The memorandum documenting the available PM and opacity data
titled Particulate Matter and Opacity Emissions Test Data Memorandum
for Secondary Lead Smelters is available in the docket for the proposed
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481). The EPA's review of
the available PM and opacity data identified that, since promulgation
of NSPS subpart L in 1974, technologies for reducing PM emissions and
opacity from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces have improved
dramatically (e.g., due to improved bag materials, replacement of older
baghouses). The 2011 proposal preamble for NESHAP subpart X (76 FR
29059) also noted the improved performance of particulate control
devices.
    For blast and reverberatory furnaces, the PM emissions data
available to the EPA consist of 42 test run-level data points obtained
using EPA Method 5 (the same test method specified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart L) from three facilities, with average values ranging from 0.34
to 9.53 mg PM/dscm. For pot furnaces, the PM emissions data available
to the EPA consist of 27 test run-level data points obtained using EPA
Method 5 from three facilities, with average values ranging from 0.46
to 1.77 mg PM/dscm. The available opacity data for blast and
reverberatory furnaces consist of nine test-run level data points from
one facility, and the available opacity data for pot furnaces consist
of six test-run level data points from two facilities. All the
available data show that opacity from blast, reverberatory, and pot
furnace emissions is zero percent.
    The EPA seeks comment regarding the available PM and opacity data
for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces and the findings of our data
review.
c. Costs of PM and Opacity Control Measures
    As part of the EPA's BSER review, we consider the costs associated
with the technologies and measures identified as potential BSER
options. Based on the finding of our data review described above, the
control technologies and levels of PM emissions and opacity the EPA
identified in our BSER review for blast, reverberatory, and pot
furnaces emissions reflect the reductions achieved by the control
devices installed to comply with the standards for particulate lead
specified in NESHAP subpart X. Therefore, we do not expect additional
emission control costs attributable to the NSPS associated with the use
of filtration (i.e., fabric filters or baghouses), scrubbers, and
afterburners to reduce PM emissions and opacity from blast furnaces,
and filtration and scrubbers to reduce PM emissions and opacity from
reverberatory furnaces, and the use of baghouses and scrubbers to
reduce opacity from pot furnace emissions, as the affected sources
would install these air pollution control devices to meet the lead
limits specified in NESHAP subpart X regardless of the requirements in
the NSPS.
    In our BSER evaluation, the EPA also considered the application of
a WESP on the exhaust of a fabric filter (or similarly effective PM
control device). The application of a WESP would be an additional
control beyond the controls needed to comply with NESHAP subpart X. The
memorandum documenting the EPA's consideration of additional controls
(Evaluation of Control Costs for Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities)
can be found in the docket for the proposed rulemaking (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481). The EPA evaluated the capital and annual costs
of installing a WESP on the exhaust of a fabric filter (or similarly
effective PM control device) for a typical new, modified, or
reconstructed facility using the cost algorithms developed to support
NESHAP subpart X and the exhaust flow rates for blast, reverberatory,
and pot furnaces contained in facility test reports. The capital cost
associated with the addition of a WESP was approximately $7.4 million
and would achieve an incremental PM emissions reduction of 2.7 tons per
year (based on 95-percent PM reduction efficiency). The total annual
cost was approximately $1.4 million, resulting in a cost-effectiveness
of approximately $528,000 per ton of PM.
    Based on our BSER evaluation, considering the costs and PM
emissions reductions, the EPA proposes to determine that the cost-
effectiveness of requiring a WESP, in addition to the controls
installed to comply with NESHAP subpart X, would be well above the
level of cost-effectiveness that the EPA has historically accepted for
PM control options. For example, the EPA rejected a control option for
PM in the 2008 Coal Preparation NSPS that had a cost-effectiveness of
approximately $91,400 per ton (73 FR 22904). In the technical document
titled Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead
Smelting Source Category, which is associated with the 2012 Risk and
Technology Review (RTR) for NESHAP subpart X, the EPA concluded that
the costs for a WESP were high (cost-effectiveness of $4,000,000/ton of
lead reduced) and did not propose requirements for the installation of
the WESP under the ample margin of safety analysis (76 FR 29058). Based
on section 12.11 (Secondary Lead Processing) of EPA's Compilation of
Air Emissions Factors (AP-42), lead emissions from blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnaces comprise approximately 23, 26, and 40
percent of the PM emissions, respectively. Assuming a conversion factor
of 0.23 tons of lead/ton of PM, the equivalent cost-effectiveness of
the WESP in terms of PM reduction would be approximately $920,000/ton
of PM in this case.
    We request comment on the control cost analysis and the EPA's
conclusions

regarding cost effectiveness of control options.
d. Determination of the BSER and Proposed Standards of Performance
    Based on the EPA's permit review and assessment of control costs,
the EPA proposes to identify that the BSER for PM emissions and opacity
from new, modified, or reconstructed blast furnaces is an afterburner
followed by efficient particulate controls (e.g., fabric filter that
may be installed in series with a HEPA filter and/or a venturi
scrubber). Because the proposed BSER controls are currently being used
in the secondary lead industry to comply with NSPS subpart L and NESHAP
subpart X emissions standards for blast furnaces, we believe that their
use has been adequately demonstrated. Also, because facilities with
new, modified, or reconstructed blast furnaces would install these
types of controls to comply with NESHAP subpart X, we do not expect
that there will be any capital or annual costs, or any non-air quality
health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the BSER
proposed for blast furnaces for purposes of NSPS subpart La.
    For new, modified, or reconstructed reverberatory and pot furnaces,
the EPA proposes to determine that the BSER for PM and opacity is
efficient particulate controls (e.g., fabric filter that may be
installed in series with a HEPA filter, venturi scrubber and/or a
WESP). The use of these types of controls has been adequately
demonstrated because they are also currently being used in the
secondary lead industry to comply with NSPS subpart L and NESHAP
subpart X. Also, because facilities with new, modified, or
reconstructed reverberatory and pot furnaces would install these types
of controls to comply with the lead standards in NESHAP subpart X, we
do not expect that there will be any additional capital or annual
costs, or any non-air quality health, environmental, or energy impacts
associated with the BSER proposed for reverberatory and pot furnaces
for purposes of subpart La.
    Based on the available data above, the EPA is proposing in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart La, that the standard of performance for blast and
reverberatory furnaces that reflects BSER is a reduction in the current
NSPS PM emissions limit of 50 mg PM/dscm or less, to 10 mg PM/dscm or
less. For the standard of performance for pot furnaces, the EPA is
proposing in subpart La to establish a PM emissions limit of 3 mg/dscm
or less. The available data also demonstrates that the BSER for opacity
results in the absence of visible emissions from the blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnace exhaust. Consequently, the EPA is
proposing that the standard of performance for opacity from blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnaces emissions is 0 percent.
    The EPA solicits comment regarding our BSER analysis and resulting
conclusions regarding the proposed standards of performance for PM and
opacity for subparts La.

B. Proposal of NSPS Subpart La Without Startup, Shutdown, Malfunctions
Exemptions

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated portions of two provisions in
the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP
during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under
section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some section 112 standard apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR
60.11(c) currently exclude opacity requirements during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and the provision in 40 CFR 60.8(c)
contains an exemption from non-opacity standards. We are proposing in
40 CFR part 60, subpart La, specific requirements at section 40 CFR
60.122a(d) that override the general provisions for SSM provisions. We
are proposing that all standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, apply
at all times.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the general provisions we are
proposing to override are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in
this section of the preamble, has not proposed alternate standards for
those periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as
part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction
in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs
during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of
the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner,'' and no statutory
language compels EPA to consider such events in setting section 111
standards of performance. The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the
analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable'' standards under section
112) has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).

C. Testing and Monitoring Requirements

    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with federal air
emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the testing and monitoring
requirements of subpart L to determine whether additional requirements
were needed to ensure compliance with the emissions limits proposed in
subpart La, which reflects the BSER under conditions of proper
operation and maintenance.
    Currently, subpart L (40 CFR 60.123) requires initial performance
testing using EPA Method 5 (Determination of Particulate Matter
Emissions from Stationary Sources) to demonstrate compliance with the
PM emissions limit for blast and reverberatory furnaces, and EPA Method
9 (Visual Opacity) to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits
for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces. Subpart L does not specify
any monitoring requirements.
    In this action, the EPA is proposing that facilities subject to 40
CFR part 60, subparts L and La, conduct periodic PM testing of blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnace emissions. The EPA is also proposing
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, periodic testing of opacity from
blast, reverberatory, and pot furnace emissions. We evaluated whether
or not periodic opacity testing should be proposed for the legacy
subpart L. Given the requirements in

NESHAP subpart X (e.g., full enclosure with negative pressure and
continuous differential pressure monitoring to ensure negative pressure
is maintained at all times, along with stringent emissions limits for
lead from all vents), we expect opacity from all existing furnaces are
probably very low or zero. Therefore, any periodic opacity testing
using EPA Method 9 under subpart L would result in new costs of $2,344
per facility (assuming semi-annual training and certification for
facility staff and conduct of the periodic Method 9 evaluations) but
yield little benefit. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a requirement
for periodic opacity testing in subpart L. However, for subpart La we
are proposing periodic testing for the absence of visible emissions
using EPA Method 22 (to demonstrate that opacity is zero percent),
which results in an additional one-time training cost for facility
personnel of $1,277 ($426 per facility). Nevertheless, the EPA solicits
comment as to whether the legacy subpart L should include periodic
opacity requirements and if so, why, and how frequent those readings
should be.
    The proposed amendments would allow facilities to request less
frequent periodic PM testing from 12 months to 24 months, if the
previous periodic compliance test demonstrates that PM emissions are 50
percent or less of the proposed emissions limit (e.g., PM emissions
from blast and reverberatory furnaces of 25 mg/dscm or less for
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart L). The EPA believes that
the proposed requirements for periodic testing ensure that the PM
controls are meeting the NSPS limits over time, and the proposed
testing frequency would align 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, with
the NESHAP (40 CFR part 60, subpart X), which requires initial and
periodic testing for lead.
    To reduce the testing burden on facilities, the EPA is also
proposing alternatives to EPA Method 5 for measuring filterable PM and
EPA Method 9 for determining opacity (visual emissions). In this
action, the EPA is proposing to allow facilities to determine the PM
emissions by gravimetric analysis of the particulate filter used in the
sampling train of either EPA Method 12 (Determination of Inorganic Lead
Emissions from Stationary Sources) or EPA Method 29 (Determination of
Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources). Because both EPA Methods 12
and 29 capture PM on a sampling train filter that is subsequently
analyzed to determine lead concentration, facilities can conduct an
additional gravimetric analysis of the EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29
filter to determine PM emissions from blast, reverberatory, and pot
furnaces, rather than performing separate tests using EPA Method 5. For
determining opacity, the EPA is proposing in subpart La to allow the
use of ASTM International (ASTM) D7520-16 (Standard Test Method for
Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere)
as an alternative to EPA Method 9. Because the proposed opacity limit
for blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces is zero percent, rather than
a specific percent opacity, the EPA is proposing in subpart La the use
of EPA Method 22 (Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from
Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares) for determining the
absence of visual emissions (i.e., zero percent opacity) in addition to
allowing use of Method 9 or the digital camera opacity technology
(i.e., ASTM D7520-16).
    To estimate the costs associated with the proposed periodic PM
testing requirements for subpart L, the EPA assumed that two of the 11
existing secondary lead smelting facilities would undergo
reconstruction over the 3-year reporting period and thus would become
subject to new subpart La. The EPA assumed that each of the remaining
nine facilities currently subject to subpart L would determine the PM
emissions from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces (one test for
each type of furnace) by weighing the particulate filter of the EPA
Method 12 or 29 sampling trains as part of the periodic performance
tests for particulate lead required by NESHAP subpart X. The
incremental cost of conducting the additional gravimetric analysis of
the particulate filter prior to subsequent analysis under EPA Methods
12 or 29 is approximately $300 per test per facility. Assuming three
stacks are tested at each facility, we estimate that the total costs
for periodic PM testing will be $900 per facility, or a total of $8,100
for the source category (nine facilities). Therefore, the estimated
total PM testing costs associated with proposed amendments to subpart L
are approximately $0 for the initial year and $8,100 for each
subsequent year for PM testing ($900 per year per facility).
    To estimate the costs associated with the proposed testing
requirements for subpart La, the EPA assumed two reconstructed sources
and one new source (i.e., three facilities) will become subject to
proposed subpart La over the next three-year period. The incremental
cost for measuring PM as part of the initial and periodic performance
tests required by proposed subpart La (in conjunction with conducting
the initial and periodic performance tests required under NESHAP
subpart X) is approximately $300 per test per facility. Assuming 3
stacks are tested at each facility, the total estimated cost are $900
per facility per year for periodic PM tests. The approximate cost for
the one-time training of facility personnel in the use of EPA Method 22
is approximately $426 per facility. Therefore, estimated total initial
cost is $1,326 per facility, and the total PM and opacity testing costs
associated with proposed subpart La (assuming 3 facilities are
affected) are approximately $3,978 for the initial year and $2,700 for
each subsequent year ($900 per year per facility). The public docket
for this proposed action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481) contains
the OMB burden estimate, which presents the calculations and
assumptions the EPA used to estimate the costs of the proposed testing
requirements for subparts L and La.
    In this action, the EPA is proposing to add 40 CFR 60.124
(Monitoring requirements) to subpart L and subpart La to include some
of the monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.548(a) through
(i) (Monitoring requirements) of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
X), including development of a standard operating procedures (SOP)
manual for control devices used to reduce PM and opacity emissions. The
EPA believes that having consistent monitoring requirements between the
NSPS and NESHAP will reduce the monitoring burden on affected
facilities. We estimate these additions to monitoring requirements in
the subparts L and La will result in very minimal additional costs, if
any, because we expect all facilities already have SOPs and implement
the other monitoring requirements to comply with the NESHAP. The EPA
solicits comment regarding the assumptions used to estimate the
proposed monitoring burden of subparts L and La.

D. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to add the notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements found in the proposed 40 CFR
60.125 and 60.125a (Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements) to NSPS subparts L and La, respectively. The proposed
requirements clarify that facilities must comply with the notification
and recordkeeping requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.7 and the
reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.19. The proposed
requirements in subparts L and La incorporate the recordkeeping

requirements from NESHAP subpart X specified in 40 CFR 63.550(b);
(c)(1) through (4); (c)(11) and (12); (e)(4) through (7); and (e)(13).
The EPA is also proposing that owners and operators of secondary lead
smelters subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60,
subparts L and La, submit electronic copies of required performance
test reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) and
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for
this action. The proposed rules require 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 \1\ at the time of
the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the
ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT
website, and other performance test results be submitted in portable
document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These
circumstances are (1) Outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports, and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and
operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully
submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their
control. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of
needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will: increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports; keep up with current trends in data availability and
transparency; further assist in the protection of public health and the
environment; improve compliance by facilitating the ability of
regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by
facilitating the ability of the EPA and delegated state, local, tribal,
and territorial air agencies to assess and determine compliance; and
ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air
agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-
based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying
data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors,
and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities,
air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting
is consistent with the EPA's plan \2\ to implement Executive Order
13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide policy \3\ developed
in response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\4\ For
more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the
memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \3\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \4\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA believes that aligning the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP reduces the burden on
facilities.

E. Compliance Dates

    Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, will be
the promulgation date of this action. Affected sources that commence
construction, or reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 1973,
but before December 1, 2022, must comply with all requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subpart L, no later than May 30, 2023. Affected sources
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after
December 1, 2022 must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart La, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    In determining the BSER, the CAA section 111(a)(1) requires the EPA
to consider potential emission control approaches, accounting for the
estimated costs as well as impacts on energy, solid waste, and other
effects. The impacts in this section are expressed as incremental
differences between the impacts of emission units complying with the
proposed 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, and the baseline
requirements (NSPS subpart L or NESHAP subpart X). The impacts are
presented for emission units at secondary lead smelting facilities that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification over the 3-year
period following proposal of the amendments of 40 CFR part 60, subparts
L and La.
    To determine the incremental impacts of the proposed amendments to
40 CFR part 60, subpart L, the EPA assumed that nine facilities would
be subject to subpart L over the 3-year reporting period (i.e., two of
the 11 facilities currently subject to the existing NSPS would undergo
reconstruction). To determine the incremental impacts of the proposed
40 CFR part 60, subpart La, the EPA projected the number of new,
modified, or reconstructed emission units that would become subject to
regulation during the 3-year period after proposal of the subpart.
Based on a modest growth forecast of 2.4 percent over the next 5 years
and the decrease in the number of facilities over the last decade, the
EPA conservatively projects that one new affected facility will be
constructed over the next 3 years. The EPA also assumes that two
existing facilities will undergo reconstruction of a blast,
reverberatory or pot furnace over the 3-year period covered by the
burden estimate.

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, would:
     Reduce the PM emissions limit for blast and reverberatory
furnaces from 50 to 10 mg/dscm.
     Establish PM emissions limits for pot furnaces of 3 mg/
dscm.
     Lower the opacity limit for blast and reverberatory
furnaces from 20 percent to 0 percent.
     Lower the opacity limit for pot furnaces from 10 percent
to 0 percent.

    New or reconstructed blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces will
also be subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) requirements
for new sources, while modified blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces
will also be subject to the NESHAP requirements for existing sources.
NESHAP subpart X regulates particulate lead emissions from process
vent, process fugitive, and fugitive dust sources. The emissions
capture systems and control devices that are already required by the
NESHAP to comply with the lead limits for blast, reverberatory, and pot
furnaces will also control PM emissions for the NSPS. Therefore, the
proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, will not result in actual
reductions of PM emissions. However, codifying the lower PM and opacity
limits in the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, will significantly
reduce the PM and opacity allowable emissions affected sources that
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after December
1, 2022.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts result from the
increased energy usage associated with the operation of control devices
(e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from
electricity generating power plants). As part of our evaluation of the
BSER, we considered whether the proposed standards of performance would
result in any secondary air emissions impacts. The EPA does not expect
that facilities will need any additional control devices or other
equipment to meet the proposed NSPS requirements beyond those that
would already be needed to comply with the NESHAP. Therefore, the EPA
does not attribute any secondary impacts to the proposed 40 CFR part
60, subpart La.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    For 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, the EPA is proposing that
facilities conduct periodic performance tests to measure PM emissions
from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces using EPA Method 5
(Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary
Sources). The NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) also requires periodic
tests for lead using EPA Method 12 (Determination of Inorganic Lead
Emissions from Stationary Sources) or EPA Method 29 (Metal Emissions
from Stationary Sources). Because both of the NESHAP test methods
capture PM on a sampling train filter that is subsequently analyzed to
determine lead concentration, facilities can conduct an additional
gravimetric analysis of the EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 filter to
determine PM emissions from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces,
rather than performing separate tests using EPA Method 5. The EPA
estimates that the additional gravimetric analysis of the EPA Method 12
or EPA Method 29 particulate filter costs approximately $300 per test
per year. To estimate the total cost associated with the proposed
periodic PM performance tests under 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La,
the EPA assumed that each respondent under the respective subparts
would conduct three PM tests per year (one for each furnace type). See
section IV.C for more details on cost estimates.
    For 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, the EPA is also proposing that
facilities periodically determine the opacity of blast, reverberatory,
and pot furnace emissions. For subpart La, the EPA is proposing that
facilities conduct initial and periodic tests using EPA Method 9 or EPA
Method 22 (Visible Determination of Fugitive Emissions) to determine
the absence of opacity in blast, reverberatory, and pot furnace
emissions. To estimate the cost of the initial and periodic opacity
tests for subpart La, the EPA assumed that facilities would use EPA
Method 22, rather than EPA Method 9, because EPA Method 22 is
sufficient for determining the absence of opacity (i.e., the proposed
opacity limit of zero percent). The EPA assumed that facilities would
train facility personnel to implement EPA Method 22 (at a one-time cost
of $426 per facility), but not incur additional capital costs.
    For 40 CFR part 60, subpart L, the total incremental cost for the
periodic PM testing over the 3-year period is $24,300 (i.e., three
tests each year at $300 per test for nine respondents). For 40 CFR part
60, subpart La, the total incremental cost for PM testing over the 3-
year period is $8,100 (i.e., three tests each year at $300 per test for
three respondents) and the total incremental cost for opacity testing
is $1,277 for EPA Method 22 training (i.e., one-time cost of $426 for
three respondents). The total incremental cost for emissions testing
for the two reconstructed sources and one new source projected over the
3-year period is $8,526.
    The EPA did not estimate cost impacts for the proposed monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, because this action
proposes to allow subject facilities to comply with these subparts by
complying with the applicable monitoring requirements for new sources
specified in the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart X). Therefore, there
is no additional monitoring burden.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels from
complying with the rule in the primary markets are significant enough,
impacts in other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of
costs associated with the proposed requirements and the distribution of
these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining
how the market will change in response to a regulatory requirement.
    Based on the estimates for PM emissions and opacity testing
described in sections III.C and IV.C of this preamble, and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in section VI.B of
this preamble, we estimate that the total cost for emissions testing,
reporting, and recordkeeping for subpart L for the nine existing
sources projected over the 3-year period is $80,000. The average annual
cost per facility is approximately $3,000. The nine facilities subject
to this rule are owned by six different parent companies with an annual
average revenue of $3.4 billion in 2021. The economic impact associated
with this cost as an annual cost per sales, for the average parent
company in the industry, is less than 0.0001 percent and is not
expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of
whether it is fully passed on to the consumer or fully absorbed by the
affected firms.
    In addition, the cost analysis assumed that facilities subject to
proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart La, would conduct initial and periodic
tests for PM emissions and opacity, but would not need to install
control devices to meet the proposed PM and opacity emissions limits
because the new, modified, or reconstructed facility would install the
same types of controls already necessary to comply with NESHAP subpart
X. The EPA also assumed that facilities subject to proposed subpart La
would not incur monitoring costs attributed to the new NSPS.
    The EPA views the testing costs to be upper-bound estimates on the
potential compliance costs of the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart La.
Even under the upper bound cost assumptions described above, the EPA
expects the potential economic impacts of this proposed action will be
small.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed
an analysis to determine if any small entities might be
disproportionately impacted by the proposed requirements. Based on this
analysis, we conclude that the estimated costs for the proposed rule

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Details of this analysis are presented in Section VI.C
of this preamble and in the memorandum Economic Impact Analysis for the
Proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Secondary Lead
Smelters available in the docket of this action.

E. What are the benefits?

    The proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subpart L, and the newly
proposed subpart La would provide needed clarifications for regulated
sources, improve the practical enforceability of the rules and enhance
compliance and enforcement. The EPA expects that implementing the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and La, will help
ensure that control systems used to reduce PM and opacity emissions
from blast, reverberatory, and pot furnaces are properly operated and
maintained over time.
    Additionally, the proposed amendments to require electronic
reporting of emissions test results in 40 CFR part 60, subparts L and
La, will ultimately reduce the burden on regulated facilities,
delegated air agencies, and the EPA, and also improve access to data,
minimizes data reporting errors, and eliminate paper waste and
redundancies.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice 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 secondary lead smelting
facilities. 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 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.'' 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 proposes standards of performance for new, modified,
and reconstructed sources that commence construction after the rule is
proposed. The locations of the construction of new secondary lead
smelters are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the
existing secondary lead smelters will be modified or reconstructed in
the future, if at all. Therefore, the demographic analysis was
conducted for the 11 existing secondary lead smelters as a
characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities
are currently located.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis. This
demographic analysis is an assessment of individual demographic groups
of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of
the existing facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 3) indicate
that, for populations within 5 km of the 11 secondary lead smelters,
the percent Hispanic or Latino population is higher than the national
average (38 percent versus 19 percent). The percentages of ``other and
multiracial population'' and people living in linguistic isolation
within the same geographic area are higher than the national average
(12 percent versus 8 percent and 8 percent versus 5 percent,
respectively). The percentage of the population over 25 without a high
school diploma is higher than the national average (19 percent versus
12 percent), while the percentage of the population living below the
poverty line is similar to the national average.
    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 11
secondary lead smelters are similar to the 5 km analysis, with the
Hispanic or Latino population and ``other and multiracial population''
both above the national average.
    A summary of the demographic assessment performed for the secondary
lead smelters is included as Table 3. The methodology and the results
of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report,
``Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Secondary
Lead Smelting Source Category Operations,'' available in the docket for
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481).

                         Table 3--Demographic Assessment for Secondary Lead Smelters \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population      Population
                                                                                within 50 km   within 5 km of
                        Demographic group                         Nationwide \1\  of 11 existing    11 existing
                                                                                facilities      facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242      23,353,293         403,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Race and Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             48%             37%
African American................................................             12%              9%             14%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.2%            0.1%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) \2\............             19%             30%             38%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%             13%             12%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             13%             14%

Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             87%             86%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             15%             19%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             85%             81%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              8%              8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American
  Community Survey five-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.
2. 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.
3. This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence
  construction after the rule is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new Secondary Lead
  Smelters are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing Secondary Lead Smelters will be
  modified or reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 11 existing
  Secondary Lead Smelters as a characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities are now
  located.

    The EPA expects that the Standards of Performance for Secondary
Lead Smelters Constructed after December 1, 2022 will ensure compliance
with the PM and opacity emissions limits (which also apply during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions) via initial and
periodic emissions testing. Proposed subpart La will also codify the
improvements in PM control technologies that have occurred in the
industry since promulgation of the current NSPS subpart L. Therefore,
there would be a positive, beneficial effect for populations in
proximity to any future affected sources, which in this source category
have tended to disproportionately include minority, low-income and
indigenous communities.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    The EPA proposes to amend the 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by
reference the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS):
     ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' describes
procedures to determine the opacity of a plume, using digital imagery
and associated hardware and software, where opacity is caused by PM
emitted from a stationary point source in the outdoor ambient
environment. The opacity of emissions 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.
    The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at
[email protected].

VI. 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 the Office of Management and Budget (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 updated
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared for
subpart L has been assigned EPA ICR number 1128.13, and the new ICR
prepared for proposed subpart La has been assigned EPA ICR number
2729.01. You can find copies of the ICRs in the docket for this rule,
and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing amendments to the existing NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart L) that require:
     updated process equipment definitions;
     periodic testing for PM emissions;
     incorporation of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are consistent with NESHAP subpart X; and
     electronic reporting of performance tests.
    The EPA is also proposing a new subpart (40 CFR part 60, subpart
La) for new, modified or reconstructed facilities that start up after
this proposal that:
     updates definitions to be consistent with the NESHAP
subpart X;
     establishes a tighter PM limit (10 mg/dscm) for blast and
reverberatory furnaces;
     establishes a new PM limit (3 mg/dscm) for pot furnaces;
     establishes a tighter opacity limit (0%) for blast,
reverberatory, and pot furnaces;
     removes the exemptions for periods of SSM;
     requires initial and periodic testing for PM and opacity
emissions;
     incorporates monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are consistent with the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart X); and
     requires electronic reporting of performance tests.
    Respondents/affected entities: Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts L and La)
    Estimated number of respondents: Nine for subpart L (EPA ICR number

1128.13) and three for subpart La (EPA ICR number 2729.01).
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 228 hours (per year) for subpart L (EPA ICR
number 1128.13) and 130 hours (per year) for subpart La (EPA ICR number
2729.01). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $26,477 (per year), includes $5,400
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs for subpart L (EPA
ICR number 1128.13) and $14,728 (per year), includes $2,700 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs for subpart La (EPA ICR number
2729.01).
    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. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than January 3, 2023.

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 classified under NAICS 331492 (Secondary Smelting, Refining,
and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)) with 750
or fewer employees (including its subsidiaries and affiliates). The
Agency has determined that four of the 11 facilities (36 percent of the
facilities) are classified as small businesses and may experience an
impact of 0.18 percent of revenues based on the maximum costs-to-sales
ratio and an annual revenue of $2.8 million in 2021. Details of this
analysis are presented in the memorandum Economic Impact Analysis for
the Proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Secondary Lead
Smelters available in the docket of this action. Based on this
analysis, we conclude that the estimated costs for the proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed 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 proposal is
not expected to impact state, local, or tribal governments and there
are no nationwide annualized costs of this proposed rule for affected
industrial sources. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This rule will not apply to such governments and
will not impose any obligations upon them.

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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule
imposes requirements on owners and operators of secondary lead smelting
facilities and not tribal governments. The EPA does not know of any
secondary lead smelting facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. However, if there are any, the effect of this proposed
rule on communities of tribal governments would not be unique or
disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 22,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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)

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
EPA Method 5 (Determination of Particulate Matter emissions from
Stationary Sources) to measure filterable PM and EPA Method 9 (Visual
Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources) to
determine visible emissions from blast and reverberatory process vents
and process fugitive emissions. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches
for the Secondary Lead NSPS through the Enhanced National Standards
Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
    We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 2H, 3, 3A, 3c, 4, 5, 9, 12, 22, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. During the EPA's VCS 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 reviewed it as a
potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential

standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of 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 a
particular VCS. No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Method 22.
    In this proposed action, the EPA is incorporating by reference the
VCS ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 9 with the following caveats:
     During the certification procedure for the digital camera
opacity technique (DCOT) outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the
facility 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
or a sparse tree stand).
     The facility 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.
     The facility must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered joint photographic experts
group (JPEG) files used for opacity and certification determination.
     The facility 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.
     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 or training of the DCOT camera, software,
and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 is on the facility, DCOT
operator, and DCOT vendor. This method describes procedures to
determine the opacity of a plume, using digital imagery and associated
hardware and software, where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a
stationary point source in the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity
of emissions is determined by the application of a 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. The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from ASTM at
https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>
at [email protected].
    The EPA is finalizing the use of the guidance document, Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R- 98-015, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1997. This
document provides guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as
fabric filter bag leak detectors. The document includes fabric filter
and monitoring system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection,
installation, setup, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance
procedures. The document is available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF.
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found in the docket for this proposed action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0481).

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 IV.F of this
preamble. All relevant documents are available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481).
    The assessment of populations in close proximity of secondary lead
smelters shows some demographic groups that are higher than the
national average, however, we determined that the human health impacts
are not disproportionate for these groups because this action proposes
changes to the standards that will increase protection for communities.
The EPA determined that the standards should be revised to reflect
cost-effective developments in practices, process, or controls and
BSER. The proposed changes will provide additional health protection
for all populations, including communities already overburdened by
pollution, which are often minority, low-income, and indigenous
communities. The proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air
quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions from
facilities in the source category. Further, this rulemaking complements
other actions already taken by the EPA to reduce emissions and improve
health outcomes for overburdened and underserved communities.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-25586 Filed 11-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P