section III.A.4, we have not quantified emission reductions as a result
of implementing the work practices. It is difficult to quantify
fugitive dust emissions since they are not released through a point,
such as a stack, and cannot easily be measured. Therefore, for the
reason discussed in section III.A.4, we have determined these costs are
reasonable and are finalizing work practices to minimize fugitive dust
in the lead oxide unloading and storage areas. The costs are discussed
in more detail in the Cost Impacts Memorandum, available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
5. Expanded Facility Applicability
    The original definition of the lead acid battery manufacturing
source category stated that lead acid battery manufacturing facilities
include any facility engaged in producing lead acid batteries and
explained that the category includes, but is not limited to, facilities
engaged in the manufacturing steps of lead oxide production, grid
casting, paste mixing, and three-process operations (plate stacking,
burning, and assembly). The EPA is aware of some facilities that
conduct one or more of

these lead acid battery manufacturing processes but do not produce the
final product of a battery. Thus, these facilities were not previously
considered to be in the lead acid battery source category, and those
processes were not subject to the lead acid battery NESHAP. To ensure
these processes that are producing certain battery parts or input
materials (such as grids or lead oxide) are regulated to the same
extent as those that are located at facilities where the final battery
products are produced, the EPA proposed to revise the applicability
provisions in the NESHAP such that facilities that process lead to
manufacture battery parts or input material would be subject to the
NESHAP even if they do not produce batteries. Information from the
technology review indicates that lead emissions from the processes at
such facilities are controlled and can meet the emissions limits in the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP. However, the
facilities would also need to comply with the compliance assurance
measures and work practices of the proposed NESHAP, including the
proposed fugitive dust mitigation plan requirements, improved
monitoring of emission points with fabric filters, performance testing,
reporting, and recordkeeping. We estimated the costs for compliance
testing would be $23,000 to $34,000 per facility once every 5 years;
and annual costs for the fugitive dust work practices would be $0 to
$13,000 per facility.
    We received two comments on this proposed action. Hammond Group, a
lead oxide manufacturer, and BCI commented that the EPA did not
consider that some of these facilities could be subject to other
NESHAP. BCI also commented that this amendment would bring in ``de
minimus'' sources such as those that manufacturer cable and wires not
necessarily used for lead acid batteries. A summary of these comments
and the Agency's response is found in the Comment Summary and Response
Document, available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA's intent with the proposed applicability amendment was to
ensure that facilities involved in the primary lead acid battery
manufacturing processes (grid casting, paste mixing, lead oxide
manufacturing and three-process operations) but that do not make the
end-product of a lead acid battery are subject to Federal regulations
that limit their lead emissions. After consideration of the comments,
we are finalizing the applicability provisions such that battery
component facilities that are involved in the primary processes (grid
casting, paste mixing, lead oxide manufacturing and three-process
operations) and manufacturing battery parts or input material (i.e.,
grids and lead oxide) used in the manufacturing of lead acid batteries
will be subject to the NESHAP. However, we are also finalizing a
provision that if a facility is already subject to another NESHAP that
controls relevant lead emissions, it is exempt from complying with the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPPP.
    After proposal, we became aware that the existing Clarios
facilities in Florence, Kentucky and West Union, South Carolina do not
make battery grids or any lead-bearing battery parts. These facilities
are involved in making the plastic battery cases. Therefore, we have
removed them from our facilities list. There are four facilities that
we are aware of (and included in the proposal analysis) that will
become subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, due to this
applicability expansion: a battery grid producing facility, Clarios in
Red Oak, Iowa; and three lead oxide manufacturers, Doe Run Fabricated
Metals in Vancouver, Washington; and Powerlab, Inc. in Terrell, Texas,
and Savanna, Illinois. The estimated costs for these facilities to
comply with the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP
range between $23,000 and $47,000 per facility once every 5 years for
performance testing, and between $20,000 and $24,000 per year for all
other requirements above what these facilities are already doing to
comply with their state regulations.
6. Testing and Monitoring Requirements
a. Performance Tests
    We proposed a requirement to conduct performance testing at least
once every 5 years for all existing and new area sources. To reduce
some of the cost burden, the EPA proposed to allow facilities that have
two or more processes and stacks that are very similar, and have the
same type of control devices, to test just one stack as representative
of the others as approved by the delegated authority. We proposed that
the NESHAP would include the same testing requirements that the EPA
proposed under the new NSPS, as discussed above in section III.A.6.a.
As explained in the proposed rule, the EPA has been adding requirements
to NESHAP when other amendments are being made to the rules to include
periodic performance tests to help ensure continuous compliance.
    As explained in section III.A.6.a., we received comments on testing
from three stakeholders. More details regarding these comments, and the
EPA's responses are provided in the Comment Summary and Response
Document, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    We are promulgating the performance testing requirements as
proposed. Costs for existing facilities are estimated to range from
$23,000 to $181,000 per facility every 5 years, depending on the total
number of stacks to be tested. We conclude performance testing costs
are reasonable and necessary to ensure the emission standards in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart PPPPPP, are continuously met and enforceable.
b. Improved Monitoring of Emission Points Controlled by Fabric Filters
and Scrubbers
    The 2007 area source NESHAP required facilities to conduct
semiannual inspections and maintenance for emission points controlled
by a fabric filter to ensure proper performance of the fabric filter.
In addition, pressure drop or visible emission observations had to be
conducted for the fabric filter daily (or weekly if the fabric filter
has a secondary HEPA filter) to ensure the fabric filter was
functioning properly. To reduce the likelihood of malfunctions that
result in excess lead emissions, the EPA proposed to increase the
frequency of fabric filter inspections and maintenance operations to
monthly for units that do not have a secondary filter and retain the
requirement for semi-annual inspections for units that do have a
secondary filter. After consideration of the public comments,
summarized in the Comment Summary and Response Document available in
the docket for this action, we are finalizing quarterly inspections for
all fabric filter systems (both primary and secondary). The estimated
costs for the additional inspections range from $0 (for facilities
already doing at least quarterly inspections) to $6,300 per facility
per year which we have determined is reasonable.
    As discussed above in section III.A.6.b., standard monitoring of
scrubbing systems includes measuring liquid flow rate across the
scrubbing system. We proposed to add a requirement to measure and
record the liquid flow rate across each scrubbing system (that is not
followed by a fabric filter) at least once every 15 minutes in the
NESHAP, in addition to monitoring pressure drop across each scrubbing
system.
    We received no comments on this issue, and therefore we are
finalizing a requirement to measure and record the

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

reports and the semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring
system performance and summary reports, through the EPA's CDX using the
CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for
this action. The final rule requires that performance test results
collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) is listed on the ERT website \5\ at the time of
the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the
ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT
website and other performance test results be submitted in portable
document format (PDF) using the attachment module in the ERT. For
semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance and summary reports, the final rule requires that owners
and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. The final version of the template for these
reports will be located on the CEDRI website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

8. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirement
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has
established standards in this rule that apply at all times. We have
also revised Table 3 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) in
several respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we
have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions'
requirement that the source develops an SSM plan. We have also
eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is
related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed
rule and summarized again here.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not established alternate standards for those periods.
    We discussed this issue with industry representatives and asked
them if they expect any problems with the removal of the SSM
exemptions. The lead acid battery manufacturing industry did not
identify (and there are no data indicating) any specific problems with
removing the SSM provisions. The main control devices used in this
industry are fabric filters. We expect that these control devices are
effective in controlling emissions during startup and shutdown events.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. This reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
    As noted in the proposal for the amendments to the Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, under this decision, the
court vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement
to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission
standards during periods of SSM. We proposed and are finalizing
revisions to the NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.11421 through 63.11427 that remove
the SSM exemption under the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP and any references to SSM-related requirements.

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

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

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

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for these final rules,
as detailed in the memorandum Economic Impact and Small Business
Analysis for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP
Area Source Technology Review: Final Report, which is available in the
docket for this action. The economic impacts of the final rules are
calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs incurred by
affected ultimate parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides
a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of
facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We estimate that
none of the ultimate parent owners affected by these final rules will
incur total annualized costs of 0.7 percent or greater of their
revenues. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies
and the industries impacted by these final rules, and there will not be
substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs of
the final rules are not expected to result in a significant market
impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or
absorbed by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

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

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating EJ in the
Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in multiple
Executive orders, the Agency has conducted an analysis of the
demographic groups living near existing facilities in the lead acid
battery manufacturing source category. For the new NSPS, we are not
aware of any future new, modified, or reconstructed facilities that
will be become subject to the NSPS in the foreseeable future. For the
NESHAP, we anticipate a total of 43 facilities to be affected by this
rule. For the demographic proximity analysis, we analyzed populations
living near existing facilities to serve as a proxy of potential
populations living near future facilities that may be impacted by the
NSPS. We have also updated the analysis conducted at proposal by
including one additional existing facility. The results of this
addition do not change the findings that some communities around
existing sources are above the national average in the demographic
categories of Hispanic/Latino, linguistically isolated, and 25 years of
age and over without a high school diploma. Executive Order 12898
directs the EPA to identify the populations of concern who are most
likely to experience unequal burdens from environmental harms;
specifically, minority populations (i.e., people of color), low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial
equity and support underserved communities through Federal government
actions (86 FR 7009; January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared have been assigned EPA
ICR number 2739.01 and OMB control number 2060-NEW for 40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, and EPA ICR number 2256.07 and OMB control number 2060-
0598 for the NESHAP. You can find a copy of the ICRs in the docket for
this rule, and they are briefly summarized here. The ICRs are specific
to information collection associated with the lead acid battery
manufacturing source category, through the new 40 CFR part 60, subpart
KKa, and amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP. We are
finalizing changes to the testing, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP, in the
form of requiring performance tests every 5 years and including the
requirement for electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the
number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of
respondents was revised from 41 to 43 for the NESHAP based on our
review of operating permits and consultation with industry
representatives and state/local agencies. We are finalizing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the new NSPS,
40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, including notifications of construction/
reconstruction, initial startup, conduct of performance tests, and
physical or operational changes; reports of opacity results,
performance test results and semiannual reports if excess emissions
occur or continuous emissions monitoring systems are used; and keeping
records of performance test results and pressure drop monitoring.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of lead acid battery
manufacturing sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and 40
CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart KKa, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: 43 facilities for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart

PPPPPP, and 0 facilities for 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule
amendments, reports of performance tests, and semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the new NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKa, and the NESHAP, averaged
over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 2,490 hours (per
year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after
the amendments are final is estimated to be 60 hours (per year). Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
new NSPS and the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be $168,000 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated
capital and operation and maintenance costs. The total average annual
Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is
estimated to be $3,070.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses that own lead acid battery manufacturing facilities or
facilities that do not make lead acid batteries but have a lead acid
battery grid casting process or a lead oxide production process. The
Agency has determined that there are nine small businesses subject to
the requirements of this action, and that eight of these small
businesses are estimated to experience impacts of less than 1 percent
of their revenues. The Agency estimates that one small business may
experience an impact of approximately 1.6 percent of their annual
revenues once every 5 years mainly due to the compliance testing
requirements, with this one small business representing approximately
11 percent of the total number of affected small entities. The other 4
of the 5 years, we estimate the costs would be less than 1 percent of
annual revenues for this one small business. Details of this analysis
are presented in Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NSPS Review and NESHAP Area Source
Technology Review: Final Report, which is available in the docket for
this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The EPA's assessment of the potential impacts to human health
from emissions at existing sources were discussed at proposal (87 FR
10140). The newly required work practices to minimize fugitive dust
containing lead and the revised emission limits described in sections
III.A.4 and III.B.4 will reduce actual and/or allowable lead emissions,
thereby reducing potential exposure to children, including the unborn.

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

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

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

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to determine if there are
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) that are relevant to this action.
The Agency also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched
their databases. Searches were conducted for the EPA Methods 9, 12, 22,
and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified
for EPA Methods 12, 22, and 29 for lead.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures similar to
the EPA's reference method, the EPA considered it as a potential
equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine
the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires
significant method validation data which meets the requirements of the
EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific,
engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for particular VCS.
    One VCS was identified as an acceptable alternative to an EPA test
method for the purposes of this rule; ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere''. ASTM D7520-16 is a test method describing the procedures
to determine the opacity of a plume using digital imagery and
associated hardware and software. The opacity of a plume is determined
by the application of a Digital Camera Opacity Technique (DCOT) that
consists of a Digital Still Camera, Analysis Software, and the Output
Function's content to obtain and interpret digital images to determine
and report plume opacity. ASTM

D7520-16 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the
following conditions:
    1. During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in
front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing
conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and
mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    2. You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in section
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
    3. You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets,
and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
    4. You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four independent
technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of
the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may
not exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading and the average error
must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    5. This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and the VCS
memorandum is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    The search identified one other VCS that was a potentially
acceptable alternative to an EPA test method for the purposes of this
rule. However, after reviewing the standards, the EPA determined that
the candidate VCS ASTM D4358-94 (1999), ``Standard Test Method for Lead
and Chromium in Air Particulate Filter Samples of Lead Chromate Type
Pigment Dusts by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy,'' is not an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 12 due to lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation data, and other important technical and policy
considerations. Additional information for the VCS search and
determinations can be found in the memorandum Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for Review of Standards of Performance for Lead Acid
Battery Manufacturing Plants and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery, which is available in
the docket for this action.
    The ASTM standards (methods) are reasonably available for purchase
individually through ASTM, International (see 40 CFR 60.17 and 63.14)
and through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Webstore,
https://webstore.ansi.org. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> for customer
service.
    We are also incorporating by reference the EPA guidance document
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015). This
document provides guidance on fabric filter and monitoring systems
including monitor selection, installation, set up, adjustment, and
operation. The guidance also discusses factors that may affect monitor
performance as well as quality assurance procedures.
    The EPA guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) is reasonably available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf or by contacting the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 1-800-553-6847.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 68.3(f), a source may apply to the EPA to
use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous peoples) and
low-income populations.
    The EPA anticipates that the human health and environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action have the potential to result
in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects
on people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
However, as we explained in the proposed rule preamble, based on
analyses of emissions and available ambient monitoring data (as
described in section IV.A of the proposal preamble (87 FR 10140)),
ambient lead concentrations near the facilities are all below the NAAQS
for lead prior to these regulations. Therefore, we concluded that the
emissions from lead acid battery area source facilities are not likely
to pose significant risks or impacts to human health if facilities are
complying with the NESHAP (see 87 FR 10134 at 10140).
    The EPA anticipates that this action is likely to reduce the
existing potential disproportionate and adverse effects on people of
color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.F of this
preamble. As discussed in section IV.F of this preamble, the
demographic analysis indicates that the following groups are above the
national average within 5 km of the 43 existing facilities: Hispanics/
Latino, people living below the poverty level, 25 years old or greater
without a high school diploma, and people living in linguistic
isolation. Populations within 5 km of the 14 facilities that the EPA
expects that the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP will result in
HAP emissions reductions are above the national average for African
Americans and people living below the poverty level. This action
further reduces lead and other criteria and HAP emissions to provide
additional protection to human health and the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

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

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

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

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

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

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

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

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

Sec.  60.370  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

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

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

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

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

Sec.  60.370a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

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

Sec.  60.371a  Definitions.

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

Sec.  60.372a  Standards for lead.

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

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

Where:

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

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

Sec.  60.373a  Monitoring of emissions and operations.

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

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

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

Sec.  60.374a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec.  60.8, the
owner or operator must use as reference methods and procedures the test
methods in appendix A to this part or other methods and procedures as
specified in this section, except as provided in Sec.  60.8(b).
    (b) After the initial performance test required in Sec.  60.8(a),
you must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate compliance
with the lead and opacity standards in Sec.  60.372a. Performance
testing must be conducted for each affected source subject to lead and
opacity standards in Sec.  60.372a, that has not had a performance test
within the last 5 years, except as described in paragraph (c) of this
section. Thereafter, subsequent performance tests for each affected
source must be completed no less frequently than every 5 years from the
date the emissions source was last tested.
    (c) In lieu of conducting subsequent performance tests for each
affected source, you may elect to group similar affected sources
together and conduct subsequent performance tests on one representative
affected source within each group of similar affected sources. The
determination of whether affected sources are similar must meet the
criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If you decide to test
representative affected sources, you must prepare and submit a testing
plan as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (1) If you elect to test representative affected sources, the
affected sources that are grouped together must be of the same process
type (e.g., grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations) and
also have the same type of air pollution control device (e.g., fabric
filters). You cannot group affected sources from different process
types or with different air pollution control device types together for
the purposes of this section.
    (2) The results of the performance test conducted for the affected
source selected as representative of a group of similar affected
sources will represent the results for each affected source within the
group. In the performance test report, all affected sources in the
group will need to be listed.
    (3) If you plan to conduct subsequent performance tests on
representative emission units, you must submit a test plan. This test
plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority for
review and approval no later than 90 days prior to the first scheduled
performance test. The test plan must contain the information specified
in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify
all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission
units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the
emission unit that will be the representative unit for that group and
subject to performance testing.
    (ii) A list of the process type and type of air pollution control
device on each emission unit.
    (iii) The date of last test for each emission unit and a schedule
indicating when you will conduct performance tests for each emission
unit within the representative groups.
    (4) If you conduct subsequent performance tests on representative
emission units, the unit with the oldest test must be tested first, and
each subsequent performance test must be performed for a different unit
until all units in the group have been tested. The order of testing for
each subsequent test must proceed such that the unit in the group with
the least recent performance test is the next unit to be tested.
    (5) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. You must make available to the Administrator in the test
report, records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
    (d) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the lead
and opacity standards in Sec.  60.372a, as follows:
    (1) EPA Method 12 or EPA Method 29 of appendix A to this part must
be used to determine the lead concentration (CPb) and the volumetric
flow rate (Qsda) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample
volume for each run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30
dscf).
    (2) EPA Method 9 of appendix A to this part and the procedures in
Sec.  60.11 must be used to determine opacity during the performance
test. For EPA Method 9, the opacity numbers must be rounded off to the
nearest whole percentage. ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the
specified conditions in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (v) of this
section.
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) You must also have standard operating procedures in place
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section
8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
    (iii) You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in
Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data
sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification
determination.
    (iv) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4)
independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any

one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and this letter
is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    (3) When different operations in a three-process operation facility
are ducted to separate control devices, the lead emission concentration
(C) from the facility must be determined using equation 1 to this
paragraph (d)(3) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23FE23.001

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

Sec.  60.375a  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

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

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

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

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

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

Sec.  63.11421  Am I subject to this subpart?

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

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

Sec.  63.11422  What are my compliance dates?

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

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

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

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

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

Where:

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