81126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

1100 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–1100 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box 

and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the Docket Management Facility (M– 

30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Terrance Knowles, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, 

Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone 

757–398–6587, e-mail 

Terrance.A.Knowles@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Maryland State Highway 

Administration owns and operates this 

bascule-type drawbridge and requested 

a temporary deviation from the current 

operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 

117.570 to facilitate mechanical repairs 

and barrier gate replacement. 

The Sassafras River Bridge (Route 

213), at mile 10.0, in Georgetown, MD 

has a vertical clearance in the closed 

position to vessels of four feet, above 

mean high water. Under normal 

operating conditions, the draw would 

open on signal from November 1 

through March 31, except from 

midnight to 8 a.m. when the draw only 

need open when at least a six-hour 

advance notice is given. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

Sassafras River (Route 213) Bridge will 

be maintained in the closed-tonavigation position beginning at 5 a.m. 

on January 10, 2011 until 5 p.m. on 

January 21, 2011. The drawbridge will 

not be able to open in the event of an 

emergency. Vessels that can pass under 

the bridge without a bridge opening may 

do so at all times. Based on historical 

bridge log data this may affect up to one 

vessel per day. Vessels with heights 

greater than 4 feet have no alternate 

routes. 

The project being conducted during 

the month of January should have the 

least impact on mariners due to the lack 

of waterway use. The Coast Guard has 

and will continue to inform the users of 

the waterway through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners Closure 

periods for the bridge will be 

announced so that vessels can arrange 

their transits to minimize any impact 

caused by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth 

Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32380 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 58 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0735; FRL–9241–8] 

RIN 2060–AP77 

Revisions to Lead Ambient Air 

Monitoring Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA issued a final rule 

on November 12, 2008, (effective date 

January 12, 2009) that revised the 

primary and secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for lead and associated 

monitoring requirements. On December 

30, 2009, EPA proposed revisions to the 

lead monitoring requirements. This 

action promulgates revisions to the 

monitoring requirements pertaining to 

where State and local monitoring 

agencies (‘‘monitoring agencies’’) would 

be required to conduct lead monitoring. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0735. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Revisions to Lead Ambient 

Air Monitoring Requirements Docket, 

Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2006–0735, 

EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. Monday through Friday excluding 

legal holidays. The docket telephone 

number is (202) 566–1742. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Kevin Cavender, Air Quality 

Assessment Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 

(C304–06), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 

541–2364; fax number (919) 541–1903; 

e-mail address: 

cavender.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

II. Where can I obtain a copy of this action? 

III. Background 

IV. Source-Oriented Monitoring 

Requirements 

A. What We Proposed for Source-Oriented 

Monitoring 

B. Comments Received on Source-Oriented 

Monitoring 

C. Final Decision on Source-Oriented 

Monitoring 

V. Monitoring at Airport Facilities 

A. What We Proposed for Airport 

Monitoring 

B. Comments Received on Monitoring at 

Airports 

C. Final Decision on Airport Monitoring 

VI. Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring 

Requirements 

A. What We Proposed for Non-SourceOriented Monitoring 

B. Comments on Non-Source-Oriented 

Monitoring 

C. Final Decision on Non-Source-Oriented 

Monitoring 

VII. Monitor Deployment Schedule 

A. What We Proposed for Monitor 

Deployment Schedule 

B. Comments on Monitor Deployment 

Schedule 

C. Final Decision on Monitoring 

Deployment Schedule 

VIII. References 

IX. Judicial Review 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81127 

1The Petitioners also filed a legal challenge to the 

monitoring provisions of the final lead NAAQS 

rule. See Missouri Coalition for the Environment, et 

al. v. EPA, (DC Cir. No. 09–1009). That litigation 

has been held in abeyance pending completion of 

EPA’s reconsideration. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies to State, 

territorial, and local air quality 

management programs that are 

responsible for ambient air monitoring 

under 40 CFR part 58. This action may 

also affect tribes that conduct ambient 

air monitoring similar to that conducted 

by States and that wish EPA to use their 

monitoring data in the same manner as 

State monitoring data. 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include: 

Category NAICS 

code a

State/territorial/local/tribal government .......................................... 924110 

a North American Industry Classification 

System. 

II. Where can I obtain a copy of this 

action? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this rule 

will also be available on the Worldwide 

Web through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following the 

Administrator’s signature, a copy of the 

final rule will be placed on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

III. Background 

The EPA issued a final rule on 

November 12, 2008, that revised the 

NAAQS for lead and associated ambient 

air lead monitoring requirements (73 FR 

66964, codified at 40 CFR part 58). As 

part of the lead monitoring 

requirements, monitoring agencies are 

required to monitor ambient air near 

lead sources which are expected to or 

have been shown to have a potential to 

contribute to a 3-month average lead 

concentration in ambient air in excess of 

the level of the NAAQS. At a minimum, 

the 2008 rule required monitoring 

agencies to monitor near lead sources 

that emit 1.0 ton per year (tpy) or more. 

However, the 2008 rule allows this 

requirement to be waived by the EPA 

Regional Administrator if the 

monitoring agency can demonstrate that 

the source will not contribute to a 

3-month average lead concentration in 

ambient air in excess of 50 percent of 

the level of the NAAQS (based on 

historical monitoring data, modeling, or 

other means). 

Monitoring agencies were also 

required by the 2008 rule to conduct 

lead monitoring in large urban areas 

(identified as Core Based Statistical 

Areas, or CBSA, as defined by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB)) with 

a population of 500,000 people or more. 

The locations for these monitoring sites 

are intended to measure neighborhoodscale lead concentrations in urban areas 

impacted by resuspended dust from 

roadways, closed industrial sources 

which previously were significant 

sources of lead, hazardous waste sites, 

construction and demolition projects, or 

other fugitive dust sources of lead. 

Following promulgation of the revised 

lead NAAQS and monitoring 

requirements, the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), the Missouri 

Coalition for the Environment 

Foundation, Physicians for Social 

Responsibility, and Coalition to End 

Childhood Lead Poisoning (‘‘the 

Petitioners’’) petitioned (NRDC, 2009) 

EPA to reconsider the lead emission rate 

at which monitoring is required (the 

‘‘emission threshold,’’ set at 1.0 tpy by 

the 2008 rule).1 On July 22, 2009, EPA 

granted the petition to reconsider 

aspects of the monitoring requirements 

(Jackson, 2009). In response to the 

petition, EPA reviewed and 

reconsidered the monitoring 

requirements and on December 30, 

2009, EPA proposed revisions to the 

requirements for both source-oriented 

and non-source-oriented monitoring for 

lead (74 FR 69050). We proposed to 

lower the emission threshold at which 

monitoring would be required (or a 

waiver granted) to 0.50 tpy, to require 

lead monitoring at NCore sites, and 

remove the existing CBSA-based nonsource-oriented monitoring 

requirement. The comment period 

ended February 16, 2010. This action 

promulgates changes to the lead 

monitoring requirements reflecting our 

consideration of the comments received 

on the proposed revisions. 

IV. Source-Oriented Monitoring 

Requirements 

We are finalizing revisions to the 

source-oriented monitoring 

requirements. Specifically, we are 

lowering the emission threshold from 

1.0 tpy to 0.50 tpy for industrial sources 

of lead (e.g., lead smelters and 

foundries). However, as discussed more 

thoroughly in Section V, we are 

maintaining the emission threshold for 

airports at 1.0 tpy, and implementing an 

airport monitoring study to determine 

the need for monitoring of airports 

which emit less than 1.0 tpy of lead. 

The following paragraphs discuss what 

we proposed, the comments we 

received, and our rationale for our final 

decisions regarding the emission 

thresholds in response to the petition 

for reconsideration. 

A. What We Proposed for SourceOriented Monitoring 

An emission threshold is used to 

identify lead emission sources which 

should be monitored because their 

emissions may cause or contribute to 

ambient lead concentrations that exceed 

the lead NAAQS. Monitoring agencies 

are required to conduct source-oriented 

lead monitoring (unless a waiver is 

granted as allowed by 40 CFR part 58 

Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)) to 

measure the maximum lead 

concentration in ambient air resulting 

from each lead source which emits lead 

at a rate equal to or more than the 

emission threshold. The emission 

threshold for the revised NAAQS was 

first set at 1.0 tpy as part of the October 

2008 lead NAAQS revisions (73 FR 

66964, codified at 40 CFR part 58). On 

December 30, 2009, we proposed to 

lower the emission threshold from 1.0 

tpy to 0.50 tpy (74 FR 69050). 

We based our proposed revision on a 

review of the analyses conducted to 

identify an appropriate emission 

threshold at the time of final NAAQS 

revision. The analyses and our review 

are documented in the preamble to the 

proposed monitoring revisions (74 FR 

69052). Specifically, we re-evaluated 

one of the analyses that EPA believed 

provided the best information on the 

potential impact of lead sources on 

ambient lead concentrations. This 

analysis used source-monitor pairs to 

estimate the lowest emission rate at 

which an industrial facility could 

exceed the lead NAAQS (Cavender 

2008). In this analysis, source-oriented 

lead monitors within one mile of a lead 

source (identified from the 2002 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI)) 

were identified. This group of sites was 

then narrowed down to sites near 

facilities emitting 1 tpy or more of lead 

into the ambient air, and then to sites 

which were only impacted by one lead 

emitting facility. Also, in cases where 

more than one monitor was identified 

within one mile of the same facility 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
81128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2The estimate of the maximum 3-month average 

lead concentration for this analysis was completed 

prior to promulgation of the final data handling 

rules contained in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix R. As 

such, minor differences in the estimated maximum 

3-month average lead concentration appear in the 

estimates presented below for the same time period. 

3EPA notes that, for facilities where emissions 

have dramatically decreased in recent years, reentrained lead from historical deposits may 

influence the emission threshold calculation to a 

greater extent than for facilities where lead 

emissions have remained constant. 

4Monitoring data at this site did not meet the 

minimum completeness requirements of 40 CFR 

part 50 Appendix R for this time period. No design 

value or site-specific emission factor was calculated 

for this time period. 

emitting 1 tpy or more of lead annually, 

EPA only used the monitor measuring 

the maximum lead concentration in the 

analysis. In this manner, EPA identified 

seven monitor-facility pairs meeting the 

emissions and distance criteria. Using 

data in the Air Quality System (AQS) 

database (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/

airsaqs/) for the years 2001–2003, EPA 

developed an estimate of the maximum 

3-month average lead concentration for 

each monitoring site.2 Next, EPA 

calculated a ratio of the maximum 3- 

month average concentration to the 

facility annual emissions (as identified 

in the 2002 NEI) to provide an estimate 

of the impact from the facility in units 

of micrograms per meter cubed (μg/m 3) 

per tpy. Dividing the level of the lead 

NAAQS (0.15 μg/m 3) by this ratio 

provides an estimate of the annual 

emissions level for the facility which 

would result in ambient lead 

concentrations just meeting the lead 

NAAQS, referred to here as a ‘‘sitespecific emission threshold’’ (see 

Table 1). 

TABLE 1—DATA USED TO ESTIMATE FACILITY IMPACTS BASED ON MONITORING DATA

AQS site ID 

Maximum 3- 

month average 

lead concentration 

(μg/m 3) 

NEI 2002 facility emission 

rate 

(tpy) 

Ratio 

(μg/m 3-tpy) 

Site-specific 

emission 

threshold (tpy) 

011090003 ....................................................................................................... 1.2 4.5 0.27 0.56 

171190010 ....................................................................................................... 0.33 1.3 0.25 0.59 

290990013 ....................................................................................................... 1.8 58.8 0.03 4.90 

340231003 ....................................................................................................... 0.23 1.7 0.14 1.11 

420110717 ....................................................................................................... 0.24 4.8 0.05 3.00 

471870100 ....................................................................................................... 0.93 2.6 0.36 0.42 

480850009 ....................................................................................................... 0.75 3.2 0.23 0.64 

This analysis shows that four of these 

seven lead sources support an emission 

threshold less than the emission 

threshold of 1.0 tpy set by the final rule 

on the revised lead NAAQS. 

As part of the reconsideration, EPA 

evaluated the stability and sensitivity of 

the above analysis. To evaluate the 

stability of the site-specific emission 

threshold calculation, EPA performed 

the same analysis for these same seven 

facilities based on the emission 

estimates from the 2002 and 2005 NEI 

(Table 2) and estimated design values 

(i.e., 3-month rolling average Pb 

concentration as determined by 40 CFR 

part 50 Appendix R) over the periods 

2001–2003 and 2004–2006 (Table 3). 

Table 4 summarizes the site-specific 

emission thresholds calculated for these 

periods. 

TABLE 2—NEI EMISSION ESTIMATES

AQS site ID NEI facility ID Facility name 

2002 NEI 

facility emission rate 

(tpy) 

2005 NEI 

facility emission rate 

(tpy) 

011090003 ................. NEI18383 .................. Sanders Lead Co ............................................................................. 4.5 4.44 

171190010 ................. NEI55848 .................. National Steel Corp—Granite City Div ............................................ 1.3 0.90 

290990013 ................. NEI34412 .................. Doe Run Company, Herculaneum Smelter ..................................... 58.8 28.09 

340231003 ................. NEINJ16031 .............. Johnson Controls Battery Group Inc ............................................... 1.7 1.34 

420110717 ................. NEI117 ...................... East Penn Mfg ................................................................................. 4.8 1.88 

471870100 ................. NEI715 ...................... Metalico-College Grove, Inc ............................................................ 2.6 2.55 

480850009 ................. NEI6493 .................... GNB Metals Div ............................................................................... 3.2 3.18 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED DESIGN VALUES

BASED ON ALTERNATIVE YEARS

AQS site ID 

2001–2003 

design 

value 

(μg/m 3) 

2004–2006 

design 

value 

(μg/m 3) 

011090003 ........ 1.2 1.16 

171190010 ........ 0.33 0.43 

290990013 ........ 1.8 1.44 

340231003 ........ 0.23 0.32 

420110717 ........ 0.24 0.20 

471870100 ........ 0.93 —4

480850009 ........ 0.75 0.77 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED SITE-SPECIFIC

EMISSION THRESHOLDS BASED ON

ALTERNATIVE YEARS

AQS site ID 

Site-specific emission 

threshold 

2002 2005 

011090003 ........ 0.56 0.57 

171190010 ........ 0.59 0.32 

290990013 ........ 4.90 2.93 

340231003 ........ 1.11 0.63 

420110717 ........ 3.00 1.41 

471870100 ........ 0.42 —4

480850009 ........ 0.64 0.62 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED SITE-SPECIFIC

EMISSION THRESHOLDS BASED ON

ALTERNATIVE YEARS—Continued 

AQS site ID 

Site-specific emission 

threshold 

2002 2005 

Minimum ........... 0.42 0.32 

Median .............. 0.64 0.62 

Maximum .......... 4.90 2.93 

Table 4 shows that, in most cases, the 

calculated emission threshold remained 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81129 

5NRDC’s comments were submitted on behalf of 

the National Resources Defense Council, the 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Physicians 

for Social Responsibility, the Coalition to End 

Childhood Lead Poisoning, American Bottom 

Conservancy, American Lung Association, Center 

on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Citizens 

Against Ruining the Environment, Clean Air 

Council, East Michigan Environmental Action 

Council, Learning Disabilities Association of 

America, New York City Environmental Justice 

Alliance, The Point, Public Interest Law Center of 

Philadelphia’s Public Health and Environmental 

Justice Project, Respiratory Health Association of 

Metropolitan Chicago, Science and Environmental 

Health Network, Trust for Lead Poisoning 

Prevention, UPROSE, Utah Physicians for a Healthy 

Environment, Leslie and Jack Warden, WEACT for 

Environmental Justice and the Wasatch Clean Air 

Coalition. 

fairly constant for a given facility over 

time, in general, varying by a factor of 

2 or less. Site-specific emission 

thresholds varied from 0.32 tpy to 4.9 

tpy with a median of 0.63 tpy. 

EPA noted that these metrics may be 

exaggerated by outliers due to the 

limited number of facilities being 

evaluated. As such, EPA looked at how 

these metrics changed when the extreme 

sites (i.e., the highest and lowest 

emitting sources) were removed. 

Excluding site 290990013 resulted in a 

lowering of the upper range to 3 tpy and 

the median to 0.62 tpy but did not affect 

the minimum (0.32 tpy). Excluding site 

171190010 increased the minimum to 

0.42 and the median to 0.64 tpy but did 

not affect the maximum. 

In our discussion of the review, we 

noted that four of the seven lead sources 

used to determine an emission 

threshold support an emission threshold 

less than 1.0 tpy. Based on our review, 

we concluded that lead sources emitting 

less than 1.0 tpy of lead could cause or 

contribute to an exceedence of the lead 

NAAQS, and, as such, we proposed to 

lower the emission threshold to 0.50 tpy 

for all sources of lead. We requested 

comment on setting the emission 

threshold at a level above or below 0.50 

tpy. 

B. Comments Received on SourceOriented Monitoring 

We received 616 comments on our 

proposal to lower the emission 

threshold for all lead sources to 0.50 

tpy. Of these comments, 601 were in 

favor of the proposed change to the 

emission threshold, four commenters 

supported maintaining the current 1.0 

tpy emission threshold, and three 

commenters suggested emission 

thresholds below 0.50 tpy. The 

following paragraphs summarize the 

significant comments received and our 

responses to these comments. 

The NRDC, on behalf of 20 additional 

organizations and two individuals,5

supported our proposed revision of the 

emission threshold to 0.50 tpy, stating, 

‘‘The latest and best available scientific 

evidence supports the adoption of a 

near-source monitoring threshold of 

0.50 tons per year of lead to protect 

public health with an adequate margin 

of safety. The available evidence 

demonstrates that facilities emitting 0.5 

tons per year of lead or more have the 

potential to contribute to a violation of 

the NAAQS.’’ NRDC also states, 

‘‘monitoring downwind of facilities that 

emit between 0.5 and 1 tons per year of 

lead is necessary to provide sufficient 

information about airborne lead levels 

near these facilities in order to 

adequately enforce the NAAQS and to 

protect health with an adequate margin 

of safety.’’ 

The National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies (NACAA) agreed there is 

evidence that high levels of lead 

exposure can occur near sources (other 

than airports) emitting 0.50 tpy of lead 

and supported the proposal to lower the 

source-oriented emissions threshold to 

0.50 tpy, stating that lowering the 

threshold will help regulatory agencies 

gather the data necessary for fully 

implementing the lead NAAQS. 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management (NESCAUM) agreed 

with the proposal to change the 

emission threshold from 1.0 to 0.50 tpy 

at lead sources (other than airports). 

Other monitoring agencies that 

supported the change to an emission 

threshold of 0.50 tpy for industrial 

sources include the states of Maine, 

Illinois, and Wisconsin. In addition, 

several hundred comments supporting 

the change to a 0.50 tpy emission 

threshold were received from 

individuals as part of two mass 

comment campaigns. 

The Doe Run Company offered two 

comments regarding the analysis used to 

identify the emission threshold. In its 

first comment, Doe Run questioned the 

use of the median of the site-specific 

emission thresholds rather than the 

arithmetic average of the individual sitespecific emission thresholds. In 

response, we chose to use the median 

rather than the arithmetic average 

because the median is more 

representative of the central tendency of 

the site-specific emission thresholds. 

Outliers (values much higher or lower 

than the rest of the data set) can 

dramatically impact the arithmetic 

average, whereas the median is less 

affected by outliers. As can be seen in 

Table 1 above, the site-specific emission 

threshold calculated for site 290990013 

is much higher than the rest of the sitespecific emission thresholds, appears to 

be an outlier, and, as such, skews the 

average to a level much higher than the 

median (i.e., central tendency) of the 

data. As can be seen, five of the seven 

site-specific emission threshold 

estimates (71 percent) are less than the 

average. Since the emission threshold is 

intended to represent an estimate of the 

lowest lead emission rate that under 

reasonable worst-case conditions (e.g., 

meteorological and emission release 

conditions that lead to poor dispersion 

and high lead concentrations) could 

result in lead concentrations exceeding 

the NAAQS (Cavender, 2008), setting 

the emission threshold at a level that is 

higher than the site-specific emission 

thresholds for 71 percent of the sites 

evaluated is inappropriate. As such, we 

believe it is appropriate to use the 

median of this data set rather than the 

arithmetic mean to determine the 

emission threshold. 

Doe Run also questioned why we 

limited the sites selected for the analysis 

to sources that were estimated to emit 

1 tpy or more of lead. In response, we 

elected to only evaluate monitor-source 

pairs where the source was estimated to 

emit 1 tpy or more to better focus the 

analysis on those monitor-source pairs 

where the lead source was the primary 

contributor to the ambient lead 

concentrations. Based on our earlier 

review of the existing ambient lead 

measurements, we determined that even 

in areas where there is no current 

industrial source of lead, ambient lead 

concentrations were typically in the 

range of 0.02 to 0.03 μg/m3 (USEPA, 

2007). This ‘‘urban background’’ level of 

lead can impact the calculated sitespecific emission thresholds, and has a 

higher impact as the source emissions 

(and consequently ambient lead 

concentrations) decrease. Therefore, we 

elected to limit our analysis to monitorsource pairs where the source was 

estimated to emit 1 tpy or more to 

minimize the impact on the emission 

threshold calculation from the ambient 

lead concentration impacts that were 

not due to the source’s lead emissions. 

As can be seen in Table 1 above, the 

lead concentrations around the sourcemonitor pairs used were considerably 

higher than background, ranging from 

0.23 to 1.8 μg/m3 on a 3-month rolling 

average, and as such, by limiting the 

analysis to sources with emissions 

greater than 1 tpy, background Pb 

concentrations had a small impact on 

the emission threshold calculation. 

C. Final Decision on Source-Oriented 

Monitoring 

Our review of the emission threshold 

analyses reflects a greater certainty that 

an emission source (other than airports 

which is discussed separately below) 

emitting 0.50 tpy or greater may cause 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
81130 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6Note the 2008 NEI will be available before 

monitoring agencies will be required to develop 

their revised lead monitoring plans. 

ambient lead concentrations to 

approach or exceed the lead NAAQS. 

We believe it is necessary to lower the 

emission threshold for industrial 

sources to 0.50 tpy to better identify 

areas where the lead NAAQS may be 

exceeded. Therefore, we are revising the 

emission threshold for industrial 

sources to 0.50 tpy. Based on the 2005 

NEI, 96 industrial facilities are 

estimated to emit 0.50 tpy or more.6

Monitoring agencies will be required to 

install and operate lead monitors at 

these sources, demonstrate actual 

emissions are less than 0.50 tpy based 

on the more current emissions or 

improved emission estimates, or request 

a waiver if they can demonstrate that 

the impact for the source will not 

contribute to ambient lead 

concentrations in excess of 50 percent of 

the lead NAAQS (as allowed for under 

40 CFR part 58 appendix D, paragraph 

4.5(a)(ii)). 

V. Monitoring at Airport Facilities 

We are maintaining a lead emission 

threshold for airports of 1.0 tpy, and are 

requiring a monitoring study at 15 

airports with lead emission inventories 

of 0.50 to 1.0 tpy that we have identified 

as having characteristics that may cause 

or contribute to ambient lead 

concentrations that approach or exceed 

the lead NAAQS. This section 

summarizes what we proposed, the 

comments we received and our response 

to these comments, and our final 

decision and rationale. 

A. What We Proposed for Airport 

Monitoring 

We proposed to lower the emission 

threshold for airport monitoring from 

1.0 tpy to 0.50 tpy. We explained that 

we had limited information on the 

ambient lead impact from airports. We 

identified one study conducted near the 

Santa Monica airport which measured a 

maximum 3-month average lead 

concentration of 0.1 μg/m3 near the 

runway blast fence (Cavender, 2009a). 

Based on the 2002 lead emission 

estimate for the Santa Monica airport of 

0.4 tpy (USEPA, 2008), an estimated 

site-specific emission threshold of 0.6 

tpy was calculated using the same 

procedures used to estimate a sitespecific emission threshold for 

industrial sources [i.e., 0.15 μg/m3/(0.1 

μg/m3/0.4 tpy) = 0.6 tpy]. We noted that 

this site-specific emission threshold (0.6 

tpy) falls within the lower end of the 

range of specific emission thresholds 

calculated for industrial sources above 

(0.32 to 4.9 tpy) and did not support the 

case for different treatment of airports. 

As such, we proposed to require 

monitoring at airports that had an 

estimated emission rate of 0.50 or more 

tpy (or request a monitoring waiver as 

allowed under 40 CFR part 58, 

Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)). 

We also requested information on 

additional data that could be used in 

setting a different emission threshold for 

airports, and comments on whether we 

should consider other factors or criteria 

that might be useful in determining 

whether a different approach is 

appropriate for identifying those 

airports that have the potential to cause 

or contribute to ambient lead 

concentrations approaching or 

exceeding the lead NAAQS. We 

provided one example of an alternative 

where we could require monitoring at 

airports that EPA determines have the 

potential to cause or contribute to 

increased ambient lead concentrations 

approaching or exceeding the NAAQS 

based on criteria including the 

estimated lead emissions and other 

factors such as the number of runways 

where piston-engine aircraft operate. 

B. Comments Received on Monitoring at 

Airports 

We received 16 comments on our 

proposal to lower the emission 

threshold for airport monitoring to 0.50 

tpy. Of these, two commenters (on 

behalf of 21 organizations and three 

individuals) supported the proposed 

lowering of the emission threshold, and 

nine did not support the change. Five 

additional commenters provided input 

and advice for improving the emission 

inventories for airports. The following 

paragraphs summarize the significant 

comments received and our responses to 

these comments. 

NRDC, on behalf of itself, 20 

additional organizations and two 

individuals, supported the change to a 

0.50 tpy emission threshold for airports, 

stating that the available evidence 

supports a 0.50 tpy monitoring 

threshold for airports. NRDC also stated 

that because piston-engine powered 

aircraft continue to be a significant 

presence at general aviation airports, 

these airports continue to be a source of 

lead emissions with the potential to 

result in lead concentrations in 

exceedence of the NAAQS, and that 

there is no evidence to support a 

departure from the monitoring threshold 

for industrial sources. 

Based on the limited available 

ambient lead concentration data near 

airports, we agree that lead emissions 

from some airports have the potential to 

cause or contribute to exceedances of 

the lead NAAQS, and that lead 

monitoring of airports is necessary to 

ensure compliance with the lead 

NAAQS. To identify airports that have 

the greatest potential to cause or 

contribute to increased ambient lead 

concentrations approaching or violating 

the NAAQS, we are applying a 0.50 tpy 

emission threshold and additional 

criteria as described further below in the 

discussion of the airport monitoring 

study. 

A number of States and State 

organizations commented against the 

use of a 0.50 tpy emission threshold for 

airports. NACAA urged EPA to develop 

an airport monitoring study of general 

aviation airports emitting more than 1.0 

tpy of lead prior to the deployment of 

a full airport monitoring program. 

NACAA claimed that a study is 

necessary in order to determine sound 

sampling siting criteria and to evaluate 

whether the 0.50 tpy threshold should 

be applicable to airports. NESCAUM 

commented that a 0.50 tpy threshold is 

not appropriate for NAAQS monitoring 

purposes at general aviation airports, 

arguing that the airport study cited in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 69054) does 

not support the need for lowering the 

monitoring threshold for general 

aviation airports. NESCAUM claims the 

study indicates that neither the Santa 

Monica nor the Van Nuys airports 

showed lead concentrations higher than 

the Los Angeles basin average of 0.018 

μg/m3 at sites beyond the airport 

property. NESCAUM recommended that 

the monitoring threshold for general 

aviation airport lead monitoring remain 

at 1.0 tpy. NESCAUM noted that based 

on the draft 2008 NEI, a 1.0 tpy 

threshold would require monitoring at 

the eight largest general aviation 

airports. NESCAUM suggests that EPA 

reassess the need for additional lead 

monitoring at smaller general aviation 

airports in a future rulemaking based on 

information gathered from monitoring of 

the airports that emit 1.0 tpy or more. 

The State of New York also commented 

that the emission threshold for airports 

should remain at 1.0 tpy and that the 

data obtained from these airports should 

be used to assess the need for additional 

monitoring at airports. Other States, 

including Florida, Michigan, and North 

Carolina, suggested that an airport 

monitoring study should be conducted 

to gain information on the potential for 

airports to exceed the lead NAAQS. 

In response, we agree that there is 

limited information available on which 

to evaluate the potential for lead 

emissions from piston-engine aircraft 

operations at airports to exceed or 

contribute to exceedances of the lead 

NAAQS. However, we believe that lead 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81131 

7Airports selected for the monitoring study must 

conduct ambient lead monitoring for the 12-month 

period of the study. Unlike other source-oriented 

lead monitors, the waiver provision will not apply 

to the short-term monitors in the airport monitoring 

study. 

emissions from piston-engine aircraft 

operations at airports may cause 

ambient lead concentrations to exceed 

the lead NAAQS at some airports based 

on the limited data available on ambient 

lead concentrations at and near airports. 

We also agree with the commenters that 

an airport monitoring study would 

provide useful information that could be 

used to determine whether a revision to 

the 1.0 tpy threshold for monitoring of 

airports would be appropriate. 

A number of States asserted that 

monitoring should not be required at 

airports because States do not have the 

authority to require controls on aircraft 

emissions that are not identical to EPA’s 

standards, and regulatory authority to 

reduce or eliminate lead emissions from 

piston-engine aircraft resides with the 

Federal Government. We understand 

States are preempted by Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 233 from adopting or 

attempting to enforce any standard for 

aircraft or aircraft engine emissions that 

is not identical to an EPA standard. 

However, that does not negate the 

responsibility to monitor sources of 

criteria pollutants to identify whether 

exceedences of the NAAQS are 

occurring. 

EPA has made some designations 

under the 2008 Lead NAAQS and 

anticipates making the remaining initial 

designations under that standard by 

October 2011. EPA does not anticipate 

that the additional monitors required 

under this rule would be installed and 

operating in time to provide data for 

consideration when EPA completes the 

remaining initial designations under the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. If EPA receives 

monitoring data exceeding the NAAQS 

after the date of initial designations, 

EPA may determine whether to 

undertake a redesignation to 

nonattainment, issue a ‘‘SIP Call’’ under 

section 110(k)(5), or take other 

discretionary steps to ensure that an 

area attains and maintains the NAAQS. 

EPA recognizes that, if ambient air near 

an airport was found to be exceeding the 

standard, and EPA were to take such 

discretionary action, there would be 

limits under federal law as to the 

measures a state could propose to adopt 

in a state implementation plan. EPA 

may take such limits into consideration 

in determining what steps to take 

following an exceedance of the 

standard. 

Separate from this Pb monitoring rule, 

EPA is responding to a petition 

submitted by Friends of the Earth (FOE) 

requesting that EPA determine whether 

Pb emissions from aircraft cause or 

contribute to air pollution that may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. As part of this 

work, EPA published in April 2010 an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) on Lead Emissions 

from Piston-Engine Aircraft Using 

Leaded Aviation Gasoline. In this action 

we described and requested comment 

on the data available for evaluating lead 

emissions, ambient concentrations and 

potential exposure to lead from the use 

of leaded aviation gasoline (avgas) in 

piston-engine powered aircraft. This 

ANPR also described considerations 

regarding emission engine standards 

and requested comment on approaches 

for transitioning the piston-engine fleet 

to unleaded avgas. The EPA and FAA 

are working with industry to evaluate 

alternatives to leaded avgas. As part of 

this assessment, EPA and FAA are also 

considering safety, fuel supply, and 

economic impact issues including 

effects on small business. 

C. Final Decision on Airport Monitoring 

We are maintaining the previously 

promulgated 1.0 tpy monitoring 

threshold for airports, rather than 

promulgating the proposed lowering of 

the threshold to 0.50 tpy, and are 

requiring lead monitoring for a 

minimum of one year at 15 additional 

airports that we have identified as 

having characteristics that could lead to 

ambient lead concentrations 

approaching or exceeding the lead 

NAAQS. We are also revising the 

provision regarding the Regional 

Administrator’s (RA) authority (40 CFR 

part 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(c)), 

which allows the RA to require 

additional lead monitoring at locations 

where the RA suspects the lead NAAQS 

may be exceeded, to clarify that this RA 

authority also applies to airports. The 

following paragraphs provide our 

rationale for this approach to 

monitoring of ambient lead 

concentrations at airports. 

As stated above and in the proposal 

to this rulemaking, we believe that lead 

emissions may approach or exceed the 

lead NAAQS at some airports based on 

the limited data available on ambient 

lead concentrations at airports. As such, 

we believe monitoring of airports is 

necessary. However, in light of the 

limited available data, and in 

consideration of the comments we have 

received, we believe that monitoring at 

airports with certain characteristics (as 

discussed below) is appropriate to 

identify airports with the potential for 

the highest ambient lead concentrations 

that could approach or exceed the lead 

NAAQS. 

We agree with the comments that a 

monitoring study should be conducted 

to determine whether a revision to the 

1.0 tpy threshold for monitoring airports 

would be appropriate. We do not agree 

with the comments that suggested the 

study should be limited to airports that 

emit 1.0 tpy or more, as airports 

emitting 1.0 tpy or more of lead often 

have much larger footprints and 

multiple runways (characteristics that 

we believe will result in lower ambient 

lead concentration impacts per ton of 

lead emitted) than many of the airports 

in the 0.50 tpy to 1.0 tpy emissions 

range. These differences would make 

the information gathered at 1.0 tpy 

airports less applicable to smaller 

airports. Consequently, we are requiring 

monitoring agencies to conduct 

monitoring at 15 selected airports where 

the most recent year of activity data 

indicates lead emissions are above 0.50 

tpy, but below 1.0 tpy, for a minimum 

of one year as part of a monitoring study 

(Hoyer, 2010).7 Details of the monitoring 

study are provided below. Table 5 lists 

the 15 selected airports for this 

monitoring study. 

TABLE 5—AIRPORTS SELECTED FOR MONITORING STUDY

Airport County State 

Merrill Field ........................................................................................................................................................ Anchorage ........................ AK 

Pryor Field Regional .......................................................................................................................................... Limestone ......................... AL 

Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County ........................................................................................................... Santa Clara ...................... CA 

McClellan-Palomar ............................................................................................................................................ San Diego ........................ CA 

Reid-Hillview ...................................................................................................................................................... Santa Clara ...................... CA 

Gillespie Field .................................................................................................................................................... San Diego ........................ CA 

San Carlos ......................................................................................................................................................... San Mateo ........................ CA 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
81132 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5—AIRPORTS SELECTED FOR MONITORING STUDY—Continued 

Airport County State 

Nantucket Memorial ........................................................................................................................................... Nantucket ......................... MA 

Oakland County International ............................................................................................................................ Oakland ............................ MI 

Republic ............................................................................................................................................................. Suffolk .............................. NY 

Brookhaven ........................................................................................................................................................ Suffolk .............................. NY 

Stinson Municipal .............................................................................................................................................. Bexar ................................ TX 

Northwest Regional ........................................................................................................................................... Denton .............................. TX 

Harvey Field ...................................................................................................................................................... Snohomish ....................... WA 

Auburn Municipal ............................................................................................................................................... King .................................. WA 

These airports were selected because 

they have characteristics that we believe 

will result in lead concentrations higher 

than those at other airports with 

estimated emission rates between 0.50 

tpy and 1.0 tpy. Specifically, in addition 

to having emissions greater than or 

equal to 0.50 tpy and less than 1.0 tpy 

(based on current emission inventories), 

these airports have ambient air within 

150 meters of the location of maximum 

emissions (e.g., the end of a runway or 

run-up location), and an airport 

configuration and meteorological 

scenario that leads to a greater 

frequency of operations from one 

runway. These characteristics were 

selected because we expect that, 

collectively, they allow us to identify 

airports with the highest potential to 

have ambient lead concentrations 

approaching or exceeding the lead 

NAAQS. A cutoff of 0.50 tpy was 

selected because it was the proposed 

emission threshold, and the higher the 

emission rate, the higher the ambient 

impact if all other factors are equal. We 

selected a maximum distance to 

ambient air from the location of 

maximum emissions of 150 meters 

because the available information 

indicates that ambient lead 

concentrations drop off quickly with 

distance, and it is less likely that an 

exceedence of the lead NAAQS will 

occur at greater distances. Finally, 

airport configuration and meteorology 

were evaluated because the lead impacts 

will be highest if the take-offs (and 

therefore lead emissions) are conducted 

at one or two runways. We evaluated 

every airport in the draft 2008 NEI based 

on these three characteristics and 

identified the 15 airports listed in Table 

5 as those airports most likely to have 

the highest ambient lead impacts that 

could lead to ambient lead 

concentrations in excess of the lead 

NAAQS. 

As part of the airport monitoring 

study, monitoring agencies will be 

required to conduct lead monitoring for 

a period of 12 consecutive months. 

Monitors will be sited at the location of 

estimated maximum lead concentration 

in ambient air, taking into account 

logistical considerations and the 

potential for population exposure. To 

ensure that the results of the study will 

be directly comparable to the lead 

NAAQS, monitoring agencies will be 

required to monitor using either Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) or Federal 

Equivalent Method (FEM) Pb-TSP 

samplers, and will not be allowed to use 

Pb-PM10 samplers for the study. Any 

monitoring location that measures a 

rolling 3-month average that exceeds 50 

percent of the NAAQS as determined 

according to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

R during the monitoring study will 

become a required monitor according to 

40 CFR part 58 paragraph 4.5(c). Data 

collected during the monitoring study 

will be reported to the AQS according 

to 40 CFR 58.16. 

Data from this monitoring study will 

be used to assess the need for additional 

lead monitoring at airports. Under 

EPA’s previously established 

monitoring network requirements, 

required source-oriented monitors that 

read above 50 percent of the NAAQS 

(0.075 μg/m3 on a rolling 3-month 

average) may not be taken down or stop 

operating (40 CFR part 58 Appendix D, 

paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)). The purpose of that 

provision is to ensure monitoring of an 

area where ambient concentrations 

could be of concern. EPA continues to 

believe that this rationale is also 

applicable to monitors at airports; 

therefore, 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D, 

paragraph 4.5(a)(ii) will apply to the 

results of airport monitors that show 

concentrations higher than 50 percent of 

the NAAQS. Such monitors will remain 

in operation, affected States will include 

them in annual monitoring network 

plans, and the monitors will become a 

part of the State and local monitoring 

network. 

If after a review of the data from the 

monitoring study we have information 

that indicates additional airports may 

have the potential to cause or contribute 

to ambient lead concentrations that 

exceed the lead NAAQS, we will 

consider use of the RA authority to 

require monitoring at additional airports 

where appropriate. Finally, data from 

this study will be used in future lead 

NAAQS reviews when considering 

requirements for monitoring at airports. 

VI. Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring 

Requirements 

We are revising the non-sourceoriented lead monitoring requirements. 

We are requiring lead monitoring at 

NCore sites in CBSA with a population 

greater than 500,000 people in lieu of 

the requirement for non-source-oriented 

monitoring in each CBSA with a 

population of 500,000 people or more. 

This section summarizes what we 

proposed, the comments we received 

and our response to these comments, 

and our final decision and rationale for 

the revisions to the non-source-oriented 

monitoring requirement. 

A. What We Proposed for Non-Source 

Oriented Monitoring 

We proposed to replace the existing 

requirement to have one non-sourceoriented monitor in each CBSA with a 

population greater than 500,000 people 

with the requirement to monitor lead at 

NCore sites. We indicated that the 

existing requirement was intended to 

monitor non-inventoried lead sources 

such as closed industrial sources, 

hazardous waste sites, and construction 

and demolition projects. We noted that 

non-inventoried sources would be better 

addressed under the existing sourceoriented monitoring requirements, and 

that the existing RA authority could be 

used to require source-oriented 

monitoring at locations where it was 

suspected that a non-inventoried source 

was likely to cause an exceedence of the 

lead NAAQS. 

We discussed the original objectives 

for non-source-oriented monitors (i.e., 

measuring typical neighborhood-scale 

lead concentrations in urban areas so we 

can better understand the risk posed by 

lead to the general population and 

provide information that could assist 

with the determination of 

nonattainment boundaries) and that 

non-source-oriented sites are important 

to support the development of long-term 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81133 

8Note that some NATTS sites do not use FRM/ 

FEM methods. If a NATTS site is to be used to meet 

the non-source-oriented monitoring requirement, 

the monitoring agency would be required to switch 

to an FRM/FEM method. 

trends at typical concentrations sites. 

We noted that these objectives match 

those of the multi-pollutant NCore 

network required under section 3 of 

Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. We also 

noted that many NCore sites will have 

the low-volume PM10 sampler 

appropriate for conducting Pb-PM10

monitoring, reducing the cost and time 

necessary to implement the non-sourceoriented monitoring requirements. Due 

to the many advantages of including 

lead monitoring at NCore sites rather 

than having separate non-sourceoriented monitoring requirements, we 

proposed to revise the existing nonsource-oriented monitoring 

requirements (paragraph 4.5(b) of 

Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58) to 

require lead monitoring at all NCore 

sites in place of the current CBSA 

population-based requirements. Finally, 

we requested comments on whether 

lead monitoring should be required at 

all NCore sites or only NCore sites in 

large urban areas (e.g., in CBSA with a 

population greater than 500,000 people). 

B. Comments on Non-Source-Oriented 

Monitoring 

We received 13 comments on our 

proposal to require lead monitoring at 

NCore sites instead of the existing 

requirement to have one non-sourceoriented monitor in each CBSA with a 

population greater than 500,000 people. 

Of these, three supported the proposed 

change to require lead monitoring at all 

NCore sites, six supported changing the 

requirement to require lead monitoring 

at only urban NCore sites, and no 

comments supported maintaining the 

existing non-source-oriented monitoring 

requirement. In addition, two 

commenters requested we provide 

guidance on when the RA authority 

should be used to require monitoring at 

non-inventoried lead sources. The 

following paragraphs summarize the 

significant comments received and our 

responses to these comments. 

In their comments, NACAA supported 

the proposal to conduct non-sourceoriented lead monitoring using the 

NCore network but recommended that 

EPA require monitoring only at NCore 

sites located in larger urban areas (i.e., 

CBSA with a population greater than 

500,000). NACAA indicated that doing 

so would allow States to use their 

limited resources to focus non-sourceoriented monitoring and control 

strategies in the most sensitive areas. 

NESCAUM commented that the 

proposed inclusion of the rural NCore 

sites is inconsistent with the monitoring 

goal and would be a waste of State 

resources. New York commented that in 

many CBSA, the tentatively approved 

NCore monitoring location is probably 

well suited for non-source-oriented 

monitoring objectives, but that there is 

no need to monitor lead at the rural 

NCore sites. North Carolina commented 

that using the NCore sites provides 

efficient use of EPA and State resources 

and provides data on background levels 

of lead most cost-effectively. Wisconsin 

supported population-oriented sites 

located at urban NCore locations and 

questioned monitoring at rural NCore 

sites where concentrations likely will be 

extremely low. 

In their comments, NRDC supported 

the inclusion of lead at all NCore sites 

stating that it will provide valuable data 

on multi-pollutant exposures in cities 

and towns across the county. However, 

they added that inclusion of lead at 

NCore sites does not sufficiently address 

all of the original objectives of the nonsource-oriented monitoring, and that the 

RA authority is not adequate to ensure 

that non-inventoried sources that have 

the potential to exceed the NAAQS will 

be monitored without additional 

guidance to the States. They suggested 

that the source-oriented monitoring 

requirement should be revised to 

provide additional guidance to States on 

monitoring non-inventoried sources that 

have the potential to exceed the 

NAAQS. We agree that additional 

guidance is needed on identifying 

locations that have the potential to 

exceed the lead NAAQS due to resuspension of deposited lead and, as 

discussed below, are clarifying the 

language for the RA authority provision 

to include requiring monitoring of reentrained dust sources as well as other 

sources of lead. 

Several commenters suggested we 

provide for the use of alternative sites 

such as National Air Toxic Trends Sites 

(NATTS) where measuring lead at 

NCore is either impractical or the 

alternative site would provide more 

useful information on urban lead 

concentrations. We note that lead 

measurements taken at NATTS sites 

would satisfy the objectives for nonsource-oriented monitoring. 

Furthermore, we proposed to require 

lead non-source-oriented monitoring at 

NCore in part due to expected 

efficiencies (i.e., use of the same 

equipment needed for PM10–2.5 mass 

measurements). We believe that the 

requested flexibility is appropriate for 

situations where non-NCore sites such 

as NATTS sites can meet the nonsource-oriented monitoring objectives at 

a lower cost to monitoring agencies.8

Two commenters noted that the nonsource-oriented lead monitoring sites 

will be the only lead monitoring site in 

many primary quality assurance 

organizations (PQAO). The collocation 

requirement in Appendix A to 40 CFR 

part 58, paragraph 3.3.4.3, would 

require these PQAO to collocate a 

second lead monitor at each of the nonsource-oriented lead monitoring sites, 

nearly doubling the cost of non-sourceoriented lead monitoring in these CBSA. 

Both commenters questioned the need 

for such extensive collocation when 

lead concentrations are expected to be 

well below the lead NAAQS at the nonsource-oriented lead monitoring sites. 

We agree with the commenters that, as 

currently written, the collocation 

requirement would lead to an 

unnecessarily high level of collocation 

at the non-source-oriented monitoring 

sites. We have modified the quality 

assurance requirements to allow the 15 

percent collocation requirement to be 

based on the entire NCore network 

rather than on a per PQAO basis which 

is consistent with the PM10–2.5

collocation requirement for NCore sites. 

C. Final Decision on Non-SourceOriented Monitoring 

We are adding the requirement for 

lead monitoring to the list of pollutants 

to be monitored for NCore sites in CBSA 

with a population of 500,000 people or 

more and revoking the existing 

requirement for non-source-oriented 

monitoring (40 CFR part 58, Appendix 

D, paragraph 4.5(b)). Also, we are 

revoking the existing requirement to 

conduct lead monitoring at 10 NCore 

sites because it is redundant to the new 

non-source-monitoring requirement 

being promulgated today (40 CFR part 

58, Appendix D, paragraph 3(c)). This 

change will improve our ability to track 

changes in typical urban lead 

concentrations and provide useful 

information on typical urban lead 

exposures. In addition, we are revising 

the RA authority (40 CFR part 58, 

Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(c)) provision 

to clarify that the RA may require 

monitoring of re-entrained lead dust 

sources which are expected to cause or 

contribute to ambient lead 

concentrations that may approach or 

exceed the lead NAAQS. Finally, we are 

revising the 15 percent collocation 

requirement for non-source-oriented 

lead monitors to be based on the entire 

NCore network rather than based on 

each PQAO. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
81134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9The total number of newly required lead sites 

is 174. However, this number includes 63 NCore 

sites which have already been sited and installed 

due to the existing requirements for installing and 

operating NCore sites. 

10The total number of new source oriented sites 

installed will likely be less as this estimate does not 

account for waivers. 

VII. Monitor Deployment Schedule 

We are requiring that monitoring 

agencies install and begin operation of 

source-oriented monitors near lead 

sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more but 

less than 1.0 tpy, and at the 15 airports 

identified for the airport monitoring 

study by December 27, 2011. We are 

requiring monitoring agencies to install 

and begin operation of non-sourceoriented monitors at NCore sites (or 

approved alternative sites) in CBSA 

with a population of 500,000 people or 

more by December 27, 2011. We are also 

requiring that monitoring agencies 

update their annual monitoring network 

plans by July 1, 2011, to incorporate 

plans for all required source-oriented 

(including airports) and non-sourceoriented lead monitors. This section 

summarizes what we proposed, the 

comments we received and our response 

to these comments, and our final 

decision and rationale for the final 

monitoring deployment schedule. 

A. What We Proposed for Monitor 

Deployment Schedule 

We proposed that monitoring agencies 

would have six months from the 

effective date of the final rule to update 

their annual monitoring network plans. 

The update would incorporate plans for 

source-oriented monitors near lead 

sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more, but 

less than 1.0 tpy. We also proposed to 

allow one year from the date of the final 

rule for monitoring agencies to install 

and begin operation of source-oriented 

monitors near lead sources emitting 0.50 

tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy. We 

also requested comment on staggering 

the monitor deployment over two years. 

Note, we did not propose changes to the 

existing schedules for updating plans 

(July 1, 2009) and beginning operation 

(January 1, 2010) of source-oriented 

monitors near lead sources emitting 1.0 

tpy or more. 

We proposed to require monitoring 

agencies to commence lead sampling at 

NCore sites when NCore sites are to 

become operational no later than 

January 1, 2011. Monitoring agencies 

must have installed and begun 

operation of required NCore sites and 

monitors (other than lead) by January 1, 

2011. Many NCore sites will have the 

necessary PM10 sampler needed to 

conduct Pb-PM10 sampling due to the 

existing requirement to conduct PM10–2.5

sampling. As such, we proposed to 

require monitoring agencies to 

commence lead sampling at NCore sites 

when NCore sites are to become 

operational no later than January 1, 

2011. 

B. Comments on Monitor Deployment 

Schedule 

We received several comments on the 

proposed monitoring deployment 

schedule. Seven commenters supported 

allowing for a longer deployment 

period. NACAA recommended that 

States’ new source-oriented monitoring 

be deployed over a two year period 

which would give State and local 

agencies adequate time to adjust their 

resources and ensure that new monitors 

are properly sited and supported. Iowa 

commented that any new sourceoriented monitors required under the 

provisions of this rule should be 

installed over a two year period, with 

the first tier of source-oriented monitors 

operational by January 2012, and the 

second tier of monitors by January 2013. 

Iowa states that this would allow States 

adequate time to refine emissions 

estimates by use of stack tests, to model 

the refined estimates, and to attempt to 

locate monitoring sites in the ‘‘hot spots’’ 

indentified by the modeling. Other 

monitoring agencies requesting a 

deployment period longer than one year 

include Texas, New York, Illinois, and 

Arkansas. 

We recognize the difficulty 

monitoring agencies will have in 

deploying the newly required monitors. 

However, as is discussed below, we 

believe it is feasible for monitoring 

agencies to deploy the monitors 

necessary to comply with this final rule 

within one year. We note that the 

estimated number of new sites that 

States will need to site and install (or 

receive waivers for) in this final rule is 

111,9 which is 50 less than the number 

estimated based on the proposed rule. 

Following the 2008 revision, monitoring 

agencies were able to install 

approximately 100 new lead sites, and 

were granted waivers for an additional 

35 sites. Based on the success and the 

experience gained from the deployment 

of the monitors to address the 2008 

revision, we believe requiring up to 111 

new sites to be sited and installed 

within one year will not create an 

excessive burden on monitoring 

agencies. 

One commenter requested that we 

synchronize the dates of the required 

revision to the lead monitoring plan 

with the date for the existing annual 

monitoring plan requirement. We 

recognize the efficiency of having the 

same dates for the revision to the lead 

monitoring plan and required annual 

monitoring plan. We also note that due 

to the timing of this final rule, the 

proposed deadline of 6-months 

following the final rule (June 27, 2011) 

is close to the deadline for the required 

2011 annual monitoring network plans 

(July 1, 2011). We agree that it is 

appropriate to use the same date for the 

two plans due to the proximity of the 

two dates. 

Several commenters noted a 

discrepancy in the required dates in the 

preamble to the proposed rule and the 

proposed regulatory language. We note 

that the proposed regulatory language 

published in the Federal Register 

inadvertently indicated dates for the 

required plan and installation and 

operation of new monitors based on the 

date of the proposed rule. The preamble 

correctly indicated that the proposed 

dates would be based on the date the 

final rule was published. 

C. Final Decision on Monitoring 

Deployment Schedule 

We are requiring that monitoring 

agencies install and begin operation of 

source-oriented monitors near lead 

sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more but 

less than 1.0 tpy and at the 15 airports 

identified for the airport monitoring 

study by December 27, 2011, one year 

from the date of publication of this final 

rule. We estimate that monitoring 

agencies will be required to site and 

install up to 111 new source-oriented 

monitors 10 based on the final 

monitoring requirements. This number 

is slightly higher than the 100 monitors 

that have already been installed near 

sources emitting 1.0 tpy or more. We 

believe monitoring agencies can install 

the newly required source-orientedmonitoring sites within one year of the 

publication of this final rule especially 

in light of the experience and success 

achieved by monitoring agencies in 

complying with the previous sourceoriented-monitoring requirement. 

We are requiring monitoring agencies 

to install and begin operation of nonsource-oriented monitors at NCore sites 

in CBSA with a population of 500,000 

people or more by December 27, 2011. 

To allow monitoring agencies sufficient 

time to plan for and install any 

necessary equipment, we are allowing 

monitoring agencies a reasonable time, 

1 year, from the time of publication of 

this final rule to comply with the nonsource-oriented monitoring 

requirements. 

We are also requiring that monitoring 

agencies update their annual monitoring 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81135 

network plans by July 1, 2011, to 

incorporate plans for all required 

source-oriented (including airports) and 

non-source-oriented lead monitoring. 

This date is the same as the existing 

requirement for States to submit their 

2011 annual monitoring plan as 

required by 40 CFR Part 58.10(a)(i). 

VIII. References 

Cavender, K. (2008). Development of Final 

Source-oriented Monitoring Emission 

Threshold. Memorandum to the Lead 

NAAQS Review Docket. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2006–0735. Available online at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/lead/

data/20081015Cavender.pdf. 

Cavender, K. (2009). Summary of Discussion 

of Lead Monitoring Near Airports at 

Spring 2009 NACAA Monitoring 

Subcommittee Meeting. Memorandum to 

the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0735. 

Hoyer, M. (2010). Selection of Airports for 

Airport Monitoring Study. Memorandum 

to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0735. 

Jackson, L. (2009). Letter to petitioners. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0735. Available online 

at: http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/

OAR.09.000.7687.pdf. 

NRDC, et al. (2009). Petition to Reconsider. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0735. Available 

online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/

pdfs/

0122009petitionReconsideration.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

(2007) Policy Assessment of Scientific 

and Technical Information: Final Staff 

Paper. Available online at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pb/

data/20071101_pb_staff.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

(2008) Lead Emissions from the Use of 

Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United 

States. EPA420–R–08–020. Available 

online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

net/tsd_avgas_lead_inventory_2002.pdf. 

White, J. (2010). Environmental Justice 

Analysis for Revisions to Lead 

Monitoring Requirements. Memorandum 

to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0735. 

IX. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of this final rule is 

available by filing a petition for review 

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit by February 

25, 2011. Moreover, under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

established by this action may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 

enforce these requirements. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it 

was deemed to ‘‘raise novel legal or 

policy issues.’’ Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule will be 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The information collected and 

reported under 40 CFR part 58 is needed 

to determine compliance with the 

NAAQS, to characterize air quality and 

associated health and ecosystem 

impacts, to develop emissions control 

strategies, and to measure progress for 

the air pollution program. The final 

amendments revise the technical 

requirements for lead monitoring sites, 

require the siting and operation of 

additional lead ambient air monitors, 

and the reporting of the collected 

ambient lead monitoring data to EPA’s 

AQS database. We have estimated the 

burden based on the final monitoring 

requirements of this rule. Based on 

these requirements, the annual average 

reporting burden for the collection 

under 40 CFR part 58 (averaged over the 

first 3 years of this Information 

Collection Request(ICR)) for 100 

respondents is estimated to increase by 

a total of 1,726 labor hours per year with 

an increase of $119,172 per year. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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 EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.21; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. Rather, 

this rule establishes monitoring 

requirements for State and local (where 

applicable) monitoring agencies. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

The amendments to 40 CFR part 58 are 

estimated to increase the ambient air 

monitoring costs by 22,376 labor hours 

per year with an increase of $1,910,059 

per year from present levels. Thus, this 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Small governments that may be affected 

by the amendments are already meeting 

similar requirements under the existing 

rules, and the costs of changing the 

network design requirements would be 

borne, in part, by the federal 

government through State assistance 

grants. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The rule does 

not alter the relationship between the 

federal government and the States 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
81136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding the establishment and 

implementation of air quality 

improvement programs as codified in 

the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. In the spirit 

of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and state 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicited comment on the proposed rule 

from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, since tribes are not obligated to 

adopt or implement any NAAQS. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 F.R. 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This rule 

would result in an insignificant increase 

in power consumption associated with 

the additional power required to run 

111 additional lead monitors 

nationwide. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice 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 and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

This proposed action revises the 

ambient monitoring requirements for 

measuring airborne lead. As such, the 

rule does not establish an 

environmental standard. Instead, by 

lowering the emissions threshold from 

1.0 tons per year (tpy) to 0.5 tpy used 

to determine if an air quality monitor for 

lead should be placed near an industrial 

facility, this rule requires assessment of 

compliance at smaller emissions 

sources, and therefore effectively 

strengthens the lead monitoring 

requirements and, in turn, may increase 

the public health protection provided by 

the NAAQS itself. The rule maintains a 

1.0 tpy emissions threshold for airports 

and implements an airport monitoring 

study to determine the need for 

monitoring of airports which emit less 

than 1.0 tpy of lead. The rule also 

replaces the existing non-sourceoriented monitoring requirement for 

lead monitoring in large urban areas 

with a requirement that lead be added 

to the list of pollutants to be monitored 

at NCore sites in CBSA with a 

population of 500,000 people or more. 

These rule amendments are designed to 

improve the lead monitoring network’s 

capability to better assess compliance 

with the revised NAAQS (73 FR 66964, 

codified at 40 CFR part 58). 

Pursuant to E.O. 12898 EPA has 

undertaken to determine the aggregate 

demographic makeup of the 

communities potentially affected by this 

proposed rule revision. The EPA 

focused its analysis on 111 industrial 

sources of lead (e.g., lead smelters, and 

foundries) impacted by the lowering of 

the emissions threshold from 1.0 tpy to 

0.5 tpy. The analytical approach, which 

assumed ‘‘proximity-to-a-source’’ as a 

surrogate for determining a population’s 

potential exposure to lead emissions 

from these sources, evaluated several 

socio-demographic parameters and 

compared them against the respective 

national averages for the same 

parameters. 

The socio-demographic parameters 

used in the analysis included estimates 

of the percentage of the population near 

the sources that were White, Minority 

(i.e., all Non-White), African American, 

Native American, Other/Multiracial, 

and Hispanic. The study also evaluated 

the percentages of the same populations 

less than or equal to 18 years of age; 

greater than or equal to 65 years of age; 

and the total below poverty line. 

The analysis determined the 

composition of those census blocks that 

lay within a circular distance of one 

mile (or approximately 1.6 kilometers) 

of affected sources with respect to the 

selected socio-demographic parameters. 

The study area radius (i.e., 1 mile) was 

used because available data generally 

indicate that lead emissions from such 

sources are rapidly deposited and 

ambient lead concentrations decline 

quickly with distance from the emission 

source. 

The analysis indicated that the 

aggregate population living within a 

one-mile area around these sources 

tends to have lower proportions of 

Whites and higher proportions of 

African-Americans, Hispanics, and 

‘‘Other and Multi-racial’’ populations 

than their respective national averages. 

The Minority (i.e., total Non-White) 

population in these areas is greater than 

the national average (i.e., 29% versus 

25% respectively). The Tribal 

population percentages are similar for 

both those living within the study area 

and the national average (i.e., both 

< 1%). The percentage of the population 

of those living below the poverty line 

within the area of study is higher than 

the national average (i.e., 17% versus 

13% respectively). However, the 

percentage of the population less than 

or equal to 18 years of age and the 

percentage age 65 or older are similar 

for those within the area of study and 

the national average. 

Based on the fact that this proposed 

rule does not allow emission increases, 

but promulgates revisions to existing 

monitoring requirements that lower the 

threshold at which monitoring by state 

and local monitoring agencies would be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81137 

required, the EPA has determined that 

the proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or Tribal 

populations. Furthermore, to the extent 

that any minority, low-income, or Tribal 

subpopulation is disproportionately 

impacted by current lead emissions as a 

result of the proximity to lead emissions 

sources, that group also stands to benefit 

from the improvement in compliance 

with the lead NAAQS which will result 

from this rule and thereby potentially 

experience associated increases in 

environmental and health benefits. 

This proposed change is a ‘‘notice and 

comment rulemaking’’ and public 

involvement is encouraged. All 

monitoring changes at the local level 

will be documented in each state’s 

monitoring plan and are available for 

public review and comment. In 

addition, EPA defines ‘‘Environmental 

Justice’’ to include 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. To promote meaningful 

involvement, EPA has developed a 

communication and outreach strategy to 

ensure that interested communities have 

access to this proposed rule, are aware 

of its content, and have an opportunity 

to comment during the comment period. 

During the comment period, EPA will 

publicize the rulemaking via EJ 

newsletters, Tribal newsletters, EJ 

listservs, and the internet, including the 

Office of Policy (OP) Rulemaking 

Gateway Web site (http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). 

EPA will also provide general 

rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this 

important for my community) for EJ 

community groups and conduct 

conference calls with interested 

communities. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective January 26, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58 

Air pollution control, Ambient air 

monitoring, Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 14, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 58 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 58—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 58 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7405, 7410, 

7414, 7601, 7611, 7614, and 7619. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 58.10 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan 

and periodic network assessment. 

(a) * * * 

(4) A plan for establishing sourceoriented Pb monitoring sites in 

accordance with the requirements of 

appendix D to this part for Pb sources 

emitting 1.0 tpy or greater shall be 

submitted to the EPA Regional 

Administrator no later than July 1, 2009, 

as part of the annual network plan 

required in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. The plan shall provide for the 

required source-oriented Pb monitoring 

sites for Pb sources emitting 1.0 tpy or 

greater to be operational by January 1, 

2010. A plan for establishing sourceoriented Pb monitoring sites in 

accordance with the requirements of 

appendix D to this part for Pb sources 

emitting equal to or greater than 0.50 

tpy but less than 1.0 tpy shall be 

submitted to the EPA Regional 

Administrator no later than July 1, 2011. 

The plan shall provide for the required 

source-oriented Pb monitoring sites for 

Pb sources emitting equal to or greater 

than 0.50 tpy but less than 1.0 tpy to be 

operational by December 27, 2011. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 58.13 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 58.13 Monitoring network completion. 

(a) The network of NCore 

multipollutant sites must be physically 

established no later than January 1, 

2011, and at that time, operating under 

all of the requirements of this part, 

including the requirements of 

appendices A, C, D, E, and G to this 

part. NCore sites required to conduct Pb 

monitoring as required under 40 CFR 

part 58 appendix D paragraph 3(b), or 

approved alternative non-sourceoriented Pb monitoring sites, shall begin 

Pb monitoring in accordance with all of 

the requirements of this part, including 

the requirements of appendices A, C, D, 

E, and G to this part no later than 

December 27, 2011. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix A to Part 58 is amended 

by revising paragraph 3.3.4.3 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Part 58—Quality 

Assurance for SLAMS, SPMs, and PSD 

Air Monitoring 

* * * * * 

3.3.4.3 Collocated Sampling. PQAO that 

have a combination of source and nonsource–oriented sites (unless the only nonsource-oriented site is an NCore site) will 

follow the procedures described in sections 

3.3.1 of this appendix with the exception that 

the first collocated Pb site selected must be 

the site measuring the highest Pb 

concentrations in the network. If the site is 

impractical, alternative sites, approved by the 

EPA Regional Administrator, may be 

selected. If additional collocated sites are 

necessary, collocated sites may be chosen 

that reflect average ambient air Pb 

concentrations in the network. The 

collocated sampling requirements for PQAO 

that only have Pb monitoring at a non-sourceoriented NCore site for sampling required 

under 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, paragraph 

4.5(b) shall be implemented as described in 

section 3.2.6 of this appendix with the 

exception that the collocated monitor will be 

the same method designation as the primary 

monitor. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Appendix D to Part 58 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph 3.(b) 

introductory text, 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph 3.(c), 

■ c. By revising paragraph 4.5.(a), 

■ d. By revising paragraph 4.5.(b), and 

■ e. By revising paragraph 4.5.(c). 

Appendix D to Part 58—Network 

Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring 

* * * * * 

3. * * * 

(b) The NCore sites must measure, at a 

minimum, PM2.5 particle mass using 

continuous and integrated/filter-based 

samplers, speciated PM2.5, PM10–2.5 particle 

mass, speciated PM10–2.5, O3, SO2, CO, NO/ 

NOy, wind speed, wind direction, relative 

humidity, and ambient temperature. NCore 

sites in CBSA with a population of 500,000 

people (as determined in the latest Census) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
81138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

or greater shall also measure Pb either as PbTSP or Pb-PM10. The EPA Regional 

Administrator may approve an alternative 

location for the Pb measurement where the 

alternative location would be more 

appropriate for logistical reasons and the 

measurement would provide data on typical 

Pb concentrations in the CBSA. 

* * * * * 

(c) [Reserved.] 

* * * * * 

4.5 * * * (a) State and, where 

appropriate, local agencies are required to 

conduct ambient air Pb monitoring near Pb 

sources which are expected to or have been 

shown to contribute to a maximum Pb 

concentration in ambient air in excess of the 

NAAQS, taking into account the logistics and 

potential for population exposure. At a 

minimum, there must be one source-oriented 

SLAMS site located to measure the maximum 

Pb concentration in ambient air resulting 

from each non-airport Pb source which emits 

0.50 or more tons per year and from each 

airport which emits 1.0 or more tons per year 

based on either the most recent National 

Emission Inventory (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/eiinformation.html) or other 

scientifically justifiable methods and data 

(such as improved emissions factors or sitespecific data) taking into account logistics 

and the potential for population exposure. 

(i) One monitor may be used to meet the 

requirement in paragraph 4.5(a) for all 

sources involved when the location of the 

maximum Pb concentration due to one Pb 

source is expected to also be impacted by Pb 

emissions from a nearby source (or multiple 

sources). This monitor must be sited, taking 

into account logistics and the potential for 

population exposure, where the Pb 

concentration from all sources combined is 

expected to be at its maximum. 

(ii) The Regional Administrator may waive 

the requirement in paragraph 4.5(a) for 

monitoring near Pb sources if the State or, 

where appropriate, local agency can 

demonstrate the Pb source will not contribute 

to a maximum Pb concentration in ambient 

air in excess of 50 percent of the NAAQS 

(based on historical monitoring data, 

modeling, or other means). The waiver must 

be renewed once every 5 years as part of the 

network assessment required under 

§ 58.10(d). 

(iii) State and, where appropriate, local 

agencies are required to conduct ambient air 

Pb monitoring near each of the airports listed 

in Table D–3A for a period of 12 consecutive 

months commencing no later than December 

27, 2011. Monitors shall be sited to measure 

the maximum Pb concentration in ambient 

air, taking into account logistics and the 

potential for population exposure, and shall 

use an approved Pb-TSP Federal Reference 

Method or Federal Equivalent Method. Any 

monitor that exceeds 50 percent of the Pb 

NAAQS on a rolling 3-month average (as 

determined according to 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix R) shall become a required 

monitor under paragraph 4.5(c) of this 

Appendix, and shall continue to monitor for 

Pb unless a waiver is granted allowing it to 

stop operating as allowed by the provisions 

in paragraph 4.5(a)(ii) of this appendix. Data 

collected shall be submitted to the Air 

Quality System database according to the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58.16. 

TABLE D–3A AIRPORTS TO BE MONITORED FOR LEAD

Airport County State 

Merrill Field ........................................................................................................................................................ Anchorage ........................ AK 

Pryor Field Regional .......................................................................................................................................... Limestone ......................... AL 

Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County ........................................................................................................... Santa Clara ...................... CA 

McClellan-Palomar ............................................................................................................................................ San Diego ........................ CA 

Reid-Hillview ...................................................................................................................................................... Santa Clara ...................... CA 

Gillespie Field .................................................................................................................................................... San Diego ........................ CA 

San Carlos ......................................................................................................................................................... San Mateo ........................ CA 

Nantucket Memorial ........................................................................................................................................... Nantucket ......................... MA 

Oakland County International ............................................................................................................................ Oakland ............................ MI 

Republic ............................................................................................................................................................. Suffolk .............................. NY 

Brookhaven ........................................................................................................................................................ Suffolk .............................. NY 

Stinson Municipal .............................................................................................................................................. Bexar ................................ TX 

Northwest Regional ........................................................................................................................................... Denton .............................. TX 

Harvey Field ...................................................................................................................................................... Snohomish ....................... WA 

Auburn Municipal ............................................................................................................................................... King .................................. WA 

(b) State and, where appropriate, local 

agencies are required to conduct non-sourceoriented Pb monitoring at each NCore site 

required under paragraph 3 of this appendix 

in a CBSA with a population of 500,000 or 

more. 

(c) The EPA Regional Administrator may 

require additional monitoring beyond the 

minimum monitoring requirements 

contained in paragraphs 4.5(a) and 4.5(b) 

where the likelihood of Pb air quality 

violations is significant or where the 

emissions density, topography, or population 

locations are complex and varied. EPA 

Regional Administrators may require 

additional monitoring at locations including, 

but not limited to, those near existing 

additional industrial sources of Pb, recently 

closed industrial sources of Pb, airports 

where piston-engine aircraft emit Pb, and 

other sources of re-entrained Pb dust. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–32153 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 484 

[CMS–1510–CN2] 

RIN 0938–AP88 

Medicare Program; Home Health 

Prospective Payment System Rate 

Update for Calendar Year 2011; 

Changes in Certification Requirements 

for Home Health Agencies and 

Hospices 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

technical error that appeared in the 

November 17, 2010 Federal Register 

entitled ‘‘Medicare Program; Home 

Health Prospective Payment System 

Rate Update for Calendar Year 2011; 

Changes in Certification Requirements 

for Home Health Agencies and 

Hospices’’ final rule (75 FR 70372). 

DATES: Effective Date: This correction is 

effective January 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Ventura, (410) 786–1985. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2010–27778 of November 

17, 2010 (75 FR 70372), there was a 

technical error that this notice serves to 

identify and correct. The provisions of 

this notice are effective as if they had 

been included in the ‘‘Medicare 

Program; Home Health Prospective 

Payment System Rate Update for 

Calendar Year 2011; Changes in 

Certification Requirements for Home 

Health Agencies and Hospices’’ final 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES