[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11556-11597]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02989]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 36

February 23, 2023

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the results of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) review of the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants and the
technology review for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources as
required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is finalizing revised
lead emission limits for grid casting, paste mixing, and lead
reclamation operations for both the area source NESHAP and under a new
NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery manufacturing facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 23, 2022).
In addition, the EPA is finalizing the following amendments for both
the area source NESHAP and under the new NSPS subpart: performance
testing once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to
minimize emissions of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection
frequency of fabric filters; clarification of activities that are
considered to be lead reclamation activities; electronic reporting of
performance test results and semiannual compliance reports; and the
removal of exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions (SSM). The EPA is also finalizing a revision to the
applicability provisions in the area source NESHAP such that facilities
which make lead-bearing battery parts or process input material,
including but not limited to grid casting facilities and lead oxide
manufacturing facilities, will be subject to the area source NESHAP. In
addition, the EPA is finalizing a requirement in the new NSPS for new
facilities to operate bag leak detection systems for emission points
controlled by a fabric filter that do not include a secondary fabric
filter.

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

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0619. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Amanda Hansen, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:

ANSI American National Standards Institute
BCI Battery Council International
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
[micro]m microns
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meters
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pb lead
RACT reasonably available control technology
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
tpd tons per day
tpy tons per year
TR technology review
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background

    A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS and NESHAP reviews?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
    D. What changes did we propose for the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category in our February 23, 2022, proposal?
    E. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct with
environmental justice communities?
III. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for
such decisions?
    A. NSPS
    B. NESHAP
    C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    1. NSPS
    2. NESHAP
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source category that is the subject of this final action is
lead acid battery manufacturing regulated under CAA section 111 New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and under CAA section 112 National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the lead acid
battery manufacturing industry is 335911. The NAICS code serves as a
guide for readers outlining the type of entities that this final action
is likely to affect. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of
Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July
1992), the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing source category for purposes
of CAA section 112 includes any facility engaged in producing lead acid
or lead acid storage batteries, including, but not limited to,
starting-lighting-ignition batteries and industrial storage batteries.
The category includes, but is not limited to, the following lead acid
battery manufacturing steps: lead oxide production, grid casting, paste
mixing, and three-process operation (plate stacking, burning, and
assembly). Lead acid battery manufacturing was identified as a source
category under CAA section 111 in the Priorities for New Source
Performance Standards Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (see
EPA-450/3-78-019, April 1978), and added to the priority list in the
Revised Prioritized List of Source Categories for NSPS Promulgation
(see EPA-450/3-79-023, March 1979). Federal, state, local and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this action. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP, or consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state air pollution
control agency with delegated authority for NSPS and NESHAP, or your
EPA Regional Office.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-new-source-performance-standards and
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lead-acid-battery-manufacturing-area-sources-national-emission. Following publication in
the Federal Register (FR), the EPA will post the Federal Register
version and key technical documents at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

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

II. Background

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

1. NSPS
    The EPA's authority for this final NSPS rule is CAA section 111,
which governs the establishment of standards of performance for
stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the
Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and
modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source
performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the
scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which
standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards,
and distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in
establishing the standards.
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' NSPS. However, the
Administrator need not review any such standard if the ``Administrator
determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily
available information on the efficacy'' of the standard. When
conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has
the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or
emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.
    In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost
of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to
determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the
regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must
then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of
performance for new sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA
section 111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate ``a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof'' if in his or her judgment, ``it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section
111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under which prescribing or
enforcing a standard of performance is ``not feasible,'' such as, when
the pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit
or capture the pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement
methodology for the particular class of sources.
    CAA section 111(b)(5) precludes the EPA from prescribing a
particular technological system that must be used to comply with a
standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or
combination of measures that will achieve the standard.
    Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon
promulgation.
2. NESHAP
    The statutory authority for this NESHAP action is provided by
sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards promulgated
under CAA section 112(d) and revise them ``as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years following promulgation
of those standards. This is referred to as a ``technology review'' and
is required for all standards established under CAA section 112(d)
including generally available control technology (GACT) standards that
apply to area sources.\1\ This action finalizes the 112(d)(6)
technology review for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards,
CAA sections 112(d)(5) and (f)(5) provide that the EPA is not
required to conduct a residual risk review under CAA section
112(f)(2). However, the EPA is required to conduct periodic
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action as they
specifically address regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions
from area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and
(k)(3) are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation of area
sources under CAA section 112.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to identify at
least 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban
areas with a primary goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in cancer
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As
discussed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706,
38715; July 19, 1999), the EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from area
sources that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas,
and these HAP are commonly referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.''
    Section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are
subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting
standards for categories of area sources including the lead acid
battery manufacturing source category that is addressed in this action.
    CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area source categories, in
lieu of setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
(which are generally required for major source categories), the EPA may
elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ``which
provide for the use of generally available control technology or
management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants.'' In developing such standards, the EPA
evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce
HAP emissions that are generally available

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

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

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

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

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

as any plant that produces a storage battery using lead and lead
compounds for the plates and sulfuric acid for the electrolyte. The
batteries manufactured at these facilities include starting, lighting,
and ignition batteries primarily used in automobiles as well as
industrial and traction batteries. Industrial batteries include those
used for uninterruptible power supplies and other backup power
applications, and traction batteries are used to power electric
vehicles such as forklifts.
    The lead acid battery manufacturing process begins with grid
casting operations, which entails stamping or casting lead into grids.
Next, in paste mixing operations, lead oxide powder is mixed with water
and sulfuric acid to form a stiff paste, which is then pressed onto the
lead grids, creating plates. Lead oxide may be produced by the battery
manufacturer, as is the case for many larger battery manufacturing
plants or may be purchased from a supplier. The plates are cured,
stacked, and connected into groups that form the individual elements of
a lead acid battery. This stacking, connecting, and assembly of the
plates into battery cases is generally performed in one operation
termed the ``three-process operation.'' At some facilities, lead
reclamation may be performed, in which relatively clean lead scrap from
these processes is collected and remelted into blocks, called ingots,
for reuse in the process.
    The NSPS applies to all lead acid battery manufacturing plants
constructed, reconstructed, or modified since January 14, 1980, if they
produce or have the design capacity to produce batteries containing 5.9
megagrams (6.5 tons) or more of lead in one day. The NSPS contains
emission limits for lead and opacity limits for grid casting, paste
mixing, three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, other lead
emitting sources, and lead reclamation at lead acid battery
manufacturing plants. The NESHAP applies to all lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities that are area sources regardless of production
capacity. The GACT standards include the same emissions and opacity
limits as those in the NSPS as well as some additional monitoring
requirements.
    The EPA estimates that, of the 40 existing lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities in the U.S., all are subject to the NSPS, and
39 facilities are subject to the NESHAP. One facility is a major source
as defined under CAA section 112 and is therefore not subject to the
area source GACT standards. In addition to these 40 facilities, we
estimate that there are four facilities that perform one or more
processes (e.g., grid casting or lead oxide production) involved in the
production of lead acid batteries but that do not manufacture the final
product (i.e., lead acid batteries). These four facilities have not
previously been subject to either the NSPS or the area source NESHAP.
The EPA does not expect any new lead acid battery manufacturing
facilities nor any facilities that conduct a lead acid battery
manufacturing process without producing the final lead acid battery
product to be constructed in the foreseeable future. However, we do
expect that some existing facilities of both types could undergo
modifications or reconstruction.

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

    On February 23, 2022, the EPA published proposed rules in the
Federal Register (87 FR 10134) for the NSPS for Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa) and the NESHAP for
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPPP) that were based on the BSER review for the NSPS and the
technology review for the NESHAP. The EPA proposed revised lead
emission limits for grid casting, paste mixing, and lead reclamation
operations for both the area source NESHAP (for new and existing
sources) and under a new NSPS subpart (for lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or
modification after February 23, 2022). In addition, the Agency proposed
the following amendments for both the area source NESHAP (for new and
existing sources) and under the new NSPS subpart: performance testing
once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance; work practices to
minimize emissions of fugitive lead dust; increased inspection
frequency of fabric filters; bag leak detection systems for facilities
above a certain size (i.e., facilities with capacity to process greater
than 150 tons per day (tpd) of lead); clarification of activities that
are considered to be lead reclamation activities; electronic reporting
of performance test results and semiannual compliance reports; and the
removal of exemptions for periods of SSM. The EPA also proposed a
revision to the applicability provisions in the area source NESHAP such
that facilities which make lead-bearing battery parts or process input
material, including but not limited to grid casting facilities and lead
oxide manufacturing facilities, will be subject to the area source
NESHAP. For additional information regarding the proposed rule, please
see the February 23, 2022, proposal (87 FR 10134).

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

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

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

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

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

A. NSPS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all times including periods of startup or shutdown.
    In addition, this final action requires compliance with the
standards at all times including periods of malfunction. Periods of
startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast,
are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition,
sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of
emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). The
EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable''
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the
court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
    The regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, only include a
requirement to conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the emissions standards for each type of equipment at
lead acid battery manufacturing plants. Through the BSER review
conducted for the source category, we found that since the promulgation
of the NSPS in 1982, the EPA has proposed and promulgated periodic
performance testing in other recent rulemakings. Through this review,
we also discovered that almost half of the 40-lead acid battery
manufacturing facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KK, are required by state and local agencies to conduct periodic
performance tests on a schedule that varies from annually to once every
5 years. Therefore, we determined at proposal that periodic performance
testing is a development in operational procedures that will help
ensure continued compliance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa. At proposal, we determined that the incremental costs of
requiring performance tests of lead emissions on this 5-year schedule
would be approximately $23,000 to test one stack and an additional
$5,500 for each additional stack testing during the same testing event.
We also determined that to minimize these costs, it would be possible,
as allowed for in some other EPA NESHAP regulations with periodic
testing requirements, that in some instances where a facility has more
than one stack that exhausts emissions from similar equipment and with
similar control devices, one representative stack could be tested to
demonstrate compliance with the similar stacks. For this, a stack
testing plan demonstrating stack representativeness and a testing
schedule would be required for approval by the EPA or the delegated
authority. Based on the costs and the importance of periodic testing to
ensure continuous compliance, we proposed to require periodic testing
for each emissions source once every 5 years, with the ability for
facilities to test representative stacks if a stack testing plan and
schedule is approved by the EPA or delegated authority.
    We received three comments on this proposal, which did not cause
the Agency to change course from what was proposed. We respond fully to
these comments in the Comment Summary and Response Document, available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    As explained in the Comment Summary and Response Document, after
considering these comments, the Agency is finalizing the additional
performance testing as proposed. Facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, will be required to test stacks and/or representative
stacks every 5 years.
b. Fabric Filter and Scrubber Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
Requirements That Are Consistent With the Requirements in 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart PPPPPP
    We proposed to add monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the use of fabric filters to the new NSPS,
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, consistent with the area source GACT
requirements in the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP. This was proposed because many of the lead
acid battery manufacturing facilities use fabric filter controls, and
the 1982 NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, does not include compliance
requirements for these devices. We also proposed to add an additional
requirement to monitor and record liquid flow rate across each
scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. The regulations in 40
CFR part 60, subpart KK, only require monitoring and recording pressure
drop across the scrubber system every 15 minutes. We received no
comments on this issue. Therefore, we are promulgating what was
proposed as the final compliance assurance measures.
    We expect that there would be no costs associated with the
requirement for new, modified, and reconstructed sources to monitor and
record liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system at least once
every 15 minutes because this is standard monitoring equipment in
scrubbing systems.
    In addition, to reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that result
in excess lead emissions, the EPA also proposed to increase the
frequency of fabric filter inspections and maintenance operations to
monthly for units that do not have a secondary filter, and to retain
the requirement for semi-annual inspections for units that do have a
secondary filter. We received one public comment from environmental
groups in support of additional inspections and one comment from
Clarios against monthly inspections. More details on these comments and
our responses are in the Comment Summary and Response Document
available in the docket for this action. After consideration of public
comments on this issue, we are finalizing increased fabric filter
inspections to quarterly for all fabric filter systems (both primary
and secondary). We expect that there would be no additional costs to
add fabric filter monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
that are consistent with the NESHAP beyond what is discussed in section
III.A.6.c for bag leak detection requirements and section III.B.6.b for
additional fabric filter inspections.
c. Bag Leak Detection Systems
    The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK, do not include
requirements to install or operate bag leak detection systems. These
systems typically include an instrument that is capable of monitoring
particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag
failures (e.g., tears) and an alarm to alert an operator of the
failure.

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

7. Other Actions
a. Clarification of Lead Oxide Manufacturing Emission Limit
    We proposed to retain the lead oxide manufacturing emission limit.
However, we received two comments asking the EPA to address apparent
issues with the emission limit. As discussed below, we are modifying
the proposal after taking the comments summarized here into
consideration. One commenter (Clarios) noted that the lead oxide
production process emission limits in both the NSPS and NESHAP are
production based, while all the other lead acid battery production
process emission limits are concentration based. The commenter opined
that the EPA set the production-based limit for lead oxide production
because only one production-based data point was available when the
NSPS was developed in 1982. The commenter suggested that the limit be
changed to a concentration-based limit to match the format of the other
battery production process limits. The commenter stated that this would
allow facilities more flexibility to apply control strategies in a
cost-effective manner by being better able to plan and coordinate their
operations, especially in multi-process facilities; simplify the
environmental management process; and allow for better operational
options. The commenter provided summaries of emissions testing data for
three of its facilities, which the commenter says demonstrate that
dramatically lower emissions levels than the current production-based
emission limit are achievable with commonly available filter
technologies. The commenter noted that each facility for which data
were provided controls emissions by way of a process dust collector
equipped with primary filters and a secondary bank of filters to
provide system redundancy. The commenter hopes that by providing this
information, the EPA can consider the level of control that is
available today with modern lead oxide production facilities and use
this information to evaluate an appropriate emission limit for lead
oxide production processes and transition to a concentration-based
limit.
    Another commenter (BCI) requests that the EPA clarify that the lead
oxide production facility 5.0 mg/kg production-based standard should be
applied only to the direct product collector baghouses and that any
other local exhaust ventilation or building ventilation exhausts
serving lead oxide production areas should be considered ``other lead-
emitting operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm concentration-based
standards. The commenter suggests the EPA could clarify this in the
preamble to the final rule or revise the definition of ``lead oxide
manufacturing facility'' to apply only to the direct process baghouse
exhausts. The commenter explained that at the time of the original
promulgation of the NSPS in the 1980s, it was typical that the only
ventilation and emission points from lead oxide production operations
was the exhaust from the lead oxide production baghouses. The commenter
further explained that these baghouses are integral to the process, in
that the lead oxide captured in these baghouses is the intended product
of that operation and are part of the production process rather than
being systems intended to reduce indoor lead exposures and minimize
exterior emissions. The commenter adds that as such, it was reasonable
that the performance limitation on the direct process baghouse exhausts
in lead oxide production areas were expressed in units of mg/kg or lb/
ton. However, the commenter notes that since the 1980's, it has become
increasingly common for facilities to have installed local exhaust
ventilation hooding on some material transfer points and other sources
in the lead oxide production areas and may also now direct room air
from lead oxide production areas to baghouses for exhaust control. The
commenter states that these emission sources should not be assessed
with or against the 5.0 mg/kg standard for the direct process baghouse
exhausts.
    We agree with the commenter that the lead oxide manufacturing
emissions limit was intended to apply only to the primary emissions
sources and their emission control devices (i.e., lead oxide production
fabric filter baghouses). In the final rule, we are clarifying that the
lead oxide manufacturing facility limit only applies to the primary
emissions sources, and that other sources associated with the lead
oxide production sources, such as building ventilation, would be
``other lead emitting operations'' subject to the 1.0 mg/dscm emission
limit. We also agree with the comment that the lead oxide production
process emissions limit was developed as a production-based limit
because only one production-based data point was available when the
NSPS was developed. However, a new limit was not proposed and the
process-based emission standard accounts for variability with
production rate and flow rate. It is difficult to establish an
equivalent concentration-based limit, due to the variability in process
conditions, such as production volume and flow rate, that must be
considered on an individual unit basis. Therefore, as facilities are
already familiar with how to comply with the production-based limit, we
are retaining the current production-based limit.
b. Electronic Reporting
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that owners and
operators of lead acid battery manufacturing subject to the new NSPS at
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports and the semiannual excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports, through
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). We did not receive any
comments regarding these requirements. A description of the electronic
data submission process is provided in the memorandum Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in the docket for this action. The final rule requires
that performance test results collected using test methods that are
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
ERT website \3\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent
with the xml schema on the ERT website and that other performance test
results be submitted in portable document format using the attachment
module in the ERT. For the semiannual excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance and summary reports, the final rule
requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. The final version of the
template for these reports will be located on the CEDRI website.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

B. NESHAP

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

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