6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 58 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0735; FRL-]

RIN 2060-AP77 Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requiremen ts

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 Standard s (NAAQS) for lead and associated monitoring requirem ents. On December 30, 2009, EPA proposed revisions to the lead monitoring requirements. This action promulgates r evisions 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 [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register ].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. All docu ments in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the index, some information is n ot publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Inf ormationPage 2 of 67

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is rest ricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyri ghted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicl y available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Revisions to Lead Ambient Ai r Monitoring Requirements Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-O AR-2006- 0735, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 333 4, 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 teleph one 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 A gency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telep hone number (919) 541-2364; fax number (919) 541-1903; e mail address: cavender.kevin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of ContentsPage 3 of 67

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-Source-Oriented 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 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution , or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Ac t 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 loc al air quality management programs that are responsible fo rPage 4 of 67

ambient air monitoring under 40 CFR part 58. This action may also affect tribes that conduct ambient air mon itoring similar to that conducted by States and that wish E PA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as Sta te monitoring data. Categories and entities potentially regulated by t his 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 Netwo rk (TTN). Following the Administrator’s signature, a copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN’s policy a nd guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rul es at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pol lution

control. III. Background The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008, t hat revised the NAAQS for lead and associated ambient a ir lead monitoring requirements (73 FR 66964, codified at 4 0 CFRPage 5 of 67

part 58). As part of the lead monitoring requireme nts, monitoring agencies are required to monitor ambient air near lead sources which are expected to or have bee n shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month aver age lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. At a minimum, the 2008 rule required monito ring 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 Admini strator if the monitoring agency can demonstrate that the s ource will not contribute to a 3-month average lead conce ntration in ambient air in excess of 50 percent of the level of the NAAQS (based on historical monitoring data, modelin g, or other means). Monitoring agencies were also required by the 2008 rule to conduct lead monitoring in large urban area s (identified as Core Based Statistical Areas, or CBS A, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB )) with a population of 500,000 people or more. The locati ons for these monitoring sites are intended to measure neighborhood-scale lead concentrations in urban are as impacted by resuspended dust from roadways, closed industrial sources which previously were significan t sources of lead, hazardous waste sites, constructio n andPage 6 of 67

demolition projects, or other fugitive dust sources of

lead. Following promulgation of the revised lead NAAQS a nd monitoring requirements, the Natural Resources Defe nse Council (NRDC), the Missouri Coalition for the Envi ronment Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, a nd Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning (“the Petitioners”) petitioned (NRDC, 2009) EPA to recons ider the lead emission rate at which monitoring is required (the “emission threshold,” set at 1.0 tpy by the 2008 ru le). 1 On July 22, 2009, EPA granted the petition to reconsid er aspects of the monitoring requirements (Jackson, 20 09). In response to the petition, EPA reviewed and reconsid ered the monitoring requirements and on December 30, 2009, E PA proposed revisions to the requirements for both sou rceoriented and non-source-oriented monitoring for lea d (74 FR 69050). We proposed to lower the emission threshol d at which monitoring would be required (or a waiver gra nted) to 0.50 tpy, to require lead monitoring at NCore sites , and remove the existing CBSA-based non-source-oriented monitoring requirement. The comment period ended F ebruary

1 The Petitioners also filed a legal challenge to t he monitoring provisions of the final lead NAAQS rule. See Missouri Coalition for the Environment, et al. v. EPA , (D.C. Cir. No. 09-1009). That litigation has been held in abeyance pending comple tion of EPA's reconsideration.Page 7 of 67

16, 2010. This action promulgates changes to the l ead monitoring requirements reflecting our consideratio n 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 lowe ring the emission threshold from 1.0 tpy to 0.50 tpy for ind ustrial 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 det ermine 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 rationa le for our final decisions regarding the emission threshol ds in response to the petition for reconsideration. A. What We Proposed for Source-Oriented Monitoring An emission threshold is used to identify lead emi ssion sources which should be monitored because their emi ssions may cause or contribute to ambient lead concentrati ons that exceed the lead NAAQS. Monitoring agencies are req uired to conduct source-oriented lead monitoring (unless a w aiver is granted as allowed by 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D, pa ragraph 4.5(a)(ii)) to measure the maximum lead concentrati on inPage 8 of 67

ambient air resulting from each lead source which e mits 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 200 8 lead NAAQS revisions (73 FR 66964, codified at 40 CFR pa rt 58). On December 30, 2009, we proposed to lower the emis sion 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 emiss ion threshold at the time of final NAAQS revision. The analyses and our review are documented in the pream ble to the proposed monitoring revisions (74 FR 69052). Specifically, we re-evaluated one of the analyses t hat EPA believed provided the best information on the poten tial impact of lead sources on ambient lead concentratio ns. This analysis used source-monitor pairs to estimate the lowest emission rate at which an industrial facilit y could exceed the lead NAAQS (Cavender 2008). In this ana lysis, source-oriented lead monitors within one mile of a lead source (identified from the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)) were identified. This group of si tes was then narrowed down to sites near facilities emittin g 1 tpy or more of lead into the ambient air, and then to s ites which were only impacted by one lead emitting facil ity.Page 9 of 67

Also, in cases where more than one monitor was iden tified within one mile of the same facility emitting 1 tpy or more of lead annually, EPA only used the monitor measuri ng the maximum lead concentration in the analysis. In thi s 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 year s 2001- 2003, EPA developed an estimate of the maximum 3-mo nth average lead concentration for each monitoring site

. 2 Next, EPA calculated a ratio of the maximum 3-month avera ge 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 lea d NAAQS, referred to here as a “site-specific emission thres hold” (see Table 1). Table 1. Data Used to Estimate Facility Impacts Bas ed on Monitoring Data

2 The estimate of the maximum 3-month average lead concentration for this analysis was completed prior to promulgation o f the final data handling rules contained in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix R. As such, minor differences in the estimated maximum 3-month averag e lead concentration appear in the estimates presented below for the sam e time period.Page 10 of 67

AQS Site Id Maximum 3-

Month Average lead Concentration (μg/m 3 ) NEI 2002

Facility Emission Rate (tpy) Ratio

(μg/m 3

- tpy) SiteSpecific 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. T o evaluate the stability of the site-specific emissio n threshold calculation, EPA performed the same analy sis for these same seven facilities based on the emission e stimates from the 2002 and 2005 NEI (Table 2) and estimated design values (i.e., 3-month rolling average Pb concentrat ion as determined by 40 CFR part 50 Appendix R) over the p eriods 2001-2003 and 2004-2006 (Table 3). Table 4 summari zes the site-specific emission thresholds calculated for th ese periods. Table 2. NEI Emission Estimates

2002 NEI 2005 NEIPage 11 of 67

AQS Site Id NEI

Facility ID Facility Name Facility Emission Rate (tpy) 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 NEINJ1603

1 Johnson

Controls Battery Group Inc 1.7 1.34

420110717 NEI117 East Penn Mfg 4.8 1.88471870100 NEI715 MetalicoCollege Grove, Inc. 2.6 2.55

480850009 NEI6493 GNB Metals Div 3.2 3.18

Table 3. Estimated Design Values Based on Alternati ve 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 Threshold s Based on Alternative Years

AQS Site Id Site-Specific

Emission Threshold 2002 2005 011090003 0.56 0.57 171190010 0.59 0.32Page 12 of 67

290990013 4.90 2.933 340231003 1.11 0.63 420110717 3.00 1.41 471870100 0.42 -- 4 480850009 0.64 0.62 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 fairly constant for a g iven facility over time, in general, varying by a factor of 2 or less. Site-specific emission thresholds varied fro m 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 be ing evaluated. As such, EPA looked at how these metric s changed when the extreme sites (i.e., the highest a nd lowest emitting sources) were removed. Excluding s ite 290990013 resulted in a lowering of the upper range to 3 tpy and the median to 0.62 tpy but did not affect t he minimum (0.32 tpy). Excluding site 171190010 incre ased the minimum to 0.42 and the median to 0.64 tpy but did not affect the maximum.

3 EPA notes that, for facilities where emissions ha ve dramatically decreased in recent years, re-entrained lead from h istorical deposits may influence the emission threshold calculation to a greater extent than for facilities where lead emissions have remai ned constant. 4 Monitoring data at this site did not meet the min imum completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50 Appendix R for this time period. No design value or site-specific emission factor was c alculated for this time period.Page 13 of 67

In our discussion of the review, we noted that four of the seven lead sources used to determine an emissio n 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 t o 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 Source-Oriented 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 c hange to the emission threshold, four commenters supported maintaining the current 1.0 tpy emission threshold, and three commenters suggested emission thresholds belo w 0.50 tpy. The following paragraphs summarize the signif icant comments received and our responses to these commen ts. The NRDC, on behalf of 20 additional organizations and two individuals 5 , supported our proposed revision of the

5 NRDC’s comments were submitted on behalf of the N ational Resources Defense Council, the Missouri Coalition for the Env ironment, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Coalition to End Chi ldhood Lead Poisoning, American Bottom Conservancy, American Lu ng Association, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Citizens Against Ruining thePage 14 of 67

emission threshold to 0.50 tpy, stating, “The lates t and best available scientific evidence supports the ado ption of a near-source monitoring threshold of 0.50 tons per year of lead to protect public health with an adequate marg in of safety. The available evidence demonstrates that facilities emitting 0.5 tons per year of lead or mo re have the potential to contribute to a violation of the N AAQS.” NRDC also states, “monitoring downwind of facilitie s that emit between 0.5 and 1 tons per year of lead is nec essary to provide sufficient information about airborne le ad levels near these facilities in order to adequately enforce the NAAQS and to protect health with an adequate ma rgin of safety.” The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NA CAA) agreed there is evidence that high levels of lead e xposure can occur near sources (other than airports) emitti ng 0.50 tpy of lead and supported the proposal to lower the sourceoriented emissions threshold to 0.50 tpy, stating t hat lowering the threshold will help regulatory agencie s gather the data necessary for fully implementing the lead NAAQS. Environment, Clean Air Council, East Michigan Envir onmental Action Council, Learning Disabilities Association of Ameri ca, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, The Point, Public I nterest Law Center of Philadelphia’s Public Health and Environmental J ustice Project, Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chic ago, Science and Environmental Health Network, Trust for Lead Poison ing Prevention, UPROSE, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Leslie and Jack Warden, WEACT for Environmental Justice and the Was atch Clean Air Coalition.Page 15 of 67

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) agreed with the proposal to change the em ission threshold from 1.0 to 0.50 tpy at lead sources (oth er than airports). Other monitoring agencies that supported the change to an emission threshold of 0.50 tpy for ind ustrial sources include the states of Maine, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In addition, several hundred comments supporting the change to a 0.50 tpy emission thresh old were received from individuals as part of two mass comme nt 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 me dian of the site-specific emission thresholds rather than t he arithmetic average of the individual site-specific emission thresholds. In response, we chose to use the media n rather than the arithmetic average because the median is m ore representative of the central tendency of the site- specific emission thresholds. Outliers (values much higher o r lower than the rest of the data set) can dramatically imp act the arithmetic average, whereas the median is less affe cted by outliers. As can be seen in Table 1 above, the sit especific emission threshold calculated for site 290 990013 is much higher than the rest of the site-specific e missionPage 16 of 67

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, fiv e of the seven site-specific emission threshold estimates (7 1 percent) are less than the average. Since the emis sion threshold is intended to represent an estimate of t he lowest lead emission rate that under reasonable wor st-case conditions (e.g., meteorological and emission relea se conditions that lead to poor dispersion and high le ad concentrations) could result in lead concentrations exceeding the NAAQS (Cavender, 2008), setting the e mission threshold at a level that is higher than the site-s pecific emission thresholds for 71 percent of the sites eva luated is inappropriate. As such, we believe it is approp riate to use the median of this data set rather than the ari thmetic mean to determine the emission threshold. Doe Run also questioned why we limited the sites selected for the analysis to sources that were esti mated to emit 1 tpy or more of lead. In response, we electe d 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 le ad source was the primary contributor to the ambient l ead concentrations. Based on our earlier review of thePage 17 of 67

existing ambient lead measurements, we determined t hat even in areas where there is no current industrial sourc e of lead, ambient lead concentrations were typically in the range of 0.02 to 0.03 μg/m 3 (USEPA, 2007). This “urban background” level of lead can impact the calculated sitespecific emission thresholds, and has a higher impa ct as the source emissions (and consequently ambient lead concentrations) decrease. Therefore, we elected to limit our analysis to monitor-source pairs where the sour ce was estimated to emit 1 tpy or more to minimize the imp act on the emission threshold calculation from the ambient lead concentration impacts that were not due to the sour ce’s lead emissions. As can be seen in Table 1 above, t he lead concentrations around the source-monitor pairs used were considerably higher than background, ranging from 0 .23 to 1.8 μg/m 3 on a 3-month rolling average, and as such, by limiting the analysis to sources with emissions gre ater than 1 tpy, background Pb concentrations had a smal l impact on the emission threshold calculation. C. Final Decision on Source-Oriented Monitoring Our review of the emission threshold analyses refl ects a greater certainty that an emission source (other th an airports which is discussed separately below) emitt ing 0.50 tpy or greater may cause ambient lead concentration s toPage 18 of 67

approach or exceed the lead NAAQS. We believe it i s necessary to lower the emission threshold for indus trial 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 t py. 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 monito rs at these sources, demonstrate actual emissions are les s than 0.50 tpy based on the more current emissions or imp roved 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 character istics that may cause or contribute to ambient lead concen trations that approach or exceed the lead NAAQS. This secti on summarizes what we proposed, the comments we receiv ed and

6 Note the 2008 NEI will be available before monito ring agencies will be required to develop their revised lead monitorin g plans.Page 19 of 67

our response to these comments, and our final decis ion and rationale. A. What We Proposed for Airport Monitoring We proposed to lower the emission threshold for ai rport 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 t he Santa Monica airport which measured a maximum 3-month ave rage lead concentration of 0.1 μg/m 3 near the runway blast fence (Cavender, 2009a). Based on the 2002 lead emission estimate for the Santa Monica airport of 0.4 tpy (U SEPA, 2008), an estimated site-specific emission threshol d of 0.6 tpy was calculated using the same procedures used t o estimate a site-specific emission threshold for ind ustrial sources [i.e., 0.15 μg/m 3 /(0.1 μg/m 3 / 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 spe cific emission thresholds calculated for industrial sourc es above (0.32 to 4.9 tpy) and did not support the case for different treatment of airports. As such, we propo sed to require monitoring at airports that had an estimate d emission rate of 0.50 or more tpy (or request a mon itoring waiver as allowed under 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)).Page 20 of 67

We also requested information on additional data t hat could be used in setting a different emission thres hold for airports, and comments on whether we should conside r other factors or criteria that might be useful in determi ning whether a different approach is appropriate for ide ntifying those airports that have the potential to cause or contribute to ambient lead concentrations approachi ng or exceeding the lead NAAQS. We provided one example of an alternative where we could require monitoring at ai rports that EPA determines have the potential to cause or contribute to increased ambient lead concentrations approaching or exceeding the NAAQS based on criteri a including the estimated lead emissions and other fa ctors such as the number of runways where piston-engine a ircraft operate. B. Comments Received on Monitoring at Airports We received 16 comments on our proposal to lower t he emission threshold for airport monitoring to 0.50 t py. Of these, two commenters (on behalf of 21 organization s and three individuals) supported the proposed lowering of the emission threshold, and nine did not support the ch ange. Five additional commenters provided input and advic e for improving the emission inventories for airports. T hePage 21 of 67

following paragraphs summarize the significant comm ents received and our responses to these comments. NRDC, on behalf of itself, 20 additional organizat ions and two individuals, supported the change to a 0.50 tpy emission threshold for airports, stating that the a vailable evidence supports a 0.50 tpy monitoring threshold f or airports. NRDC also stated that because piston-eng ine powered aircraft continue to be a significant prese nce at general aviation airports, these airports continue to be a source of lead emissions with the potential to resu lt in lead concentrations in exceedence of the NAAQS, and that there is no evidence to support a departure from th e monitoring threshold for industrial sources. Based on the limited available ambient lead concentration data near airports, we agree that lea d emissions from some airports have the potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of the lead NAAQS, and th at lead monitoring of airports is necessary to ensure compl iance with the lead NAAQS. To identify airports that hav e the greatest potential to cause or contribute to increa sed ambient lead concentrations approaching or violatin g the NAAQS, we are applying a 0.50 tpy emission threshol d and additional criteria as described further below in t he discussion of the airport monitoring study.Page 22 of 67

A number of States and State organizations comment ed against the use of a 0.50 tpy emission threshold fo r airports. NACAA urged EPA to develop an airport mo nitoring study of general aviation airports emitting more th an 1.0 tpy of lead prior to the deployment of a full airpo rt monitoring program. NACAA claimed that a study is necessary in order to determine sound sampling siti ng criteria and to evaluate whether the 0.50 tpy thres hold should be applicable to airports. NESCAUM commente d that a 0.50 tpy threshold is not appropriate for NAAQS mon itoring 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 monitori ng threshold for general aviation airports. NESCAUM c laims the study indicates that neither the Santa Monica n or the Van Nuys airports showed lead concentrations higher than the Los Angeles basin average of 0.018 μg/m 3 at sites beyond the airport property. NESCAUM recommended that the monitoring threshold for general aviation airport l ead monitoring remain at 1.0 tpy. NESCAUM noted that b ased on the draft 2008 NEI, a 1.0 tpy threshold would requi re monitoring at the eight largest general aviation ai rports. NESCAUM suggests that EPA reassess the need for add itional lead monitoring at smaller general aviation airport s in aPage 23 of 67

future rulemaking based on information gathered fro m monitoring of the airports that emit 1.0 tpy or mor e. 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 use d to assess the need for additional monitoring at airpor ts. Other States, including Florida, Michigan, and Nort h Carolina, suggested that an airport monitoring stud y should be conducted to gain information on the potential f or airports to exceed the lead NAAQS. In response, we agree that there is limited inform ation available on which to evaluate the potential for le ad emissions from piston-engine aircraft operations at airports to exceed or contribute to exceedances of the lead NAAQS. However, we believe that lead emissions fro m piston-engine aircraft operations at airports may c ause ambient lead concentrations to exceed the lead NAAQ S at some airports based on the limited data available o n ambient lead concentrations at and near airports. We also agree with the commenters that an airport monitorin g study would provide useful information that could be used to determine whether a revision to the 1.0 tpy thresho ld for monitoring of airports would be appropriate.Page 24 of 67

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 regulator y authority to reduce or eliminate lead emissions fro m piston-engine aircraft resides with the Federal Gov ernment. 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 do es not negate the responsibility to monitor sources of cri teria pollutants to identify whether exceedences of the N AAQS are occurring. EPA has made some designations under the 2008 Lead NAAQS and anticipates making the remaining initial design ations under that standard by October 2011. EPA does not anticipate that the additional monitors required un der this rule would be installed and operating in time to pr ovide data for consideration when EPA completes the remai ning 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 discre tionaryPage 25 of 67

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 wer e to take such discretionary action, there would be limi ts under federal law as to the measures a state could propos e 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 resp onding to a petition submitted by Friends of the Earth (FO E) 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 Ap ril 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 requeste d comment on the data available for evaluating lead emissions, ambient concentrations and potential exp osure to lead from the use of leaded aviation gasoline (avga s) in piston-engine powered aircraft. This ANPR also des cribed considerations regarding emission engine standards and requested comment on approaches for transitioning t he piston-engine fleet to unleaded avgas. The EPA and FAA arePage 26 of 67

working with industry to evaluate alternatives to l eaded avgas. As part of this assessment, EPA and FAA are also considering safety, fuel supply, and economic impac t issues including effects on small business. A number of State s asserted that monitoring should not be required at airports

because State s do not have the authority to require controls on aircraft emissions that are not identic al to

EPA’s standards ( note , however , that EPA does not currently regulate lead emissions from aircraft)

. We understand

State s are preempted by C lean A ir A ct (CAA) section 233 from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard for aircraft 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 . The data collected at airports will assist the State s and EPA in

e nsuring that the lead NAAQS are attained and maintained. C. Final Decision on Airport Monitoring We are maintaining the previously promulgated 1.0 tpy monitoring threshold for airports, rather than prom ulgating 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 havi ng characteristics that could lead to ambient leadPage 27 of 67

concentrations approaching or exceeding the lead NA AQS. We are also revising the provision regarding the Regio nal Administrator’s (RA) authority (40 CFR part 58, App endix D, paragraph 4.5(c)), which allows the RA to require additional lead monitoring at locations where the R A suspects the lead NAAQS may be exceeded, to clarify that this RA authority also applies to airports. The fo llowing paragraphs provide our rationale for this approach to monitoring of ambient lead concentrations at airpor ts. As stated above and in the proposal to this rulema king, we believe that lead emissions may approach or exce ed the lead NAAQS at some airports based on the limited da ta available on ambient lead concentrations at airport s. As such, we believe monitoring of airports is necessar y. However, in light of the limited available data, an d in consideration of the comments we have received, we believe that monitoring at airports with certain characteri stics (as discussed below) is appropriate to identify air ports with the potential for the highest ambient lead concentrations that could approach or exceed the le ad 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 bePage 28 of 67

appropriate. We do not agree with the comments tha t suggested the study should be limited to airports t hat emit 1.0 tpy or more, as airports emitting 1.0 tpy or mo re of lead often have much larger footprints and multiple runways (characteristics that we believe will result in low er ambient lead concentration impacts per ton of lead emitted) than many of the airports in the 0.50 tpy to 1.0 tp y emissions range. These differences would make the information gathered at 1.0 tpy airports less appli cable to smaller airports. Consequently, we are requiring monitoring agencies to conduct monitoring at 15 sel ected airports where the most recent year of activity dat a indicates lead emissions are above 0.50 tpy, but be low 1.0 tpy, for a minimum of one year as part of a monitor ing study (Hoyer, 2010). 7 Details of the monitoring study are provided below. Table 5 lists the 15 selected airp orts 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 Santa Clara CA

7 Airports selected for the monitoring study must c onduct ambient lead monitoring for the 12-month period of the study. Un like other sourceoriented lead monitors, the waiver provision will n ot apply to the short-term monitors in the airport monitoring study

.Page 29 of 67

County 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

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 t py. Specifically, in addition to having emissions great er than or equal to 0.50 tpy and less than 1.0 tpy (based o n current emission inventories), these airports have ambient air within 150 meters of the location of maximum em issions (e.g., the end of a runway or run-up location), and an airport configuration and meteorological scenario t hat leads to a greater frequency of operations from one runway. These characteristics were selected because we expe ct that, collectively, they allow us to identify airports wi th thePage 30 of 67

highest potential to have ambient lead concentratio ns approaching or exceeding the lead NAAQS. A cutoff of 0.50 tpy was selected because it was the proposed emissi on threshold, and the higher the emission rate, the hi gher 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 availab le information indicates that ambient lead concentrati ons drop off quickly with distance, and it is less likely th at an exceedence of the lead NAAQS will occur at greater distances. Finally, airport configuration and mete orology were evaluated because the lead impacts will be hig hest if the take-offs (and therefore lead emissions) are co nducted 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 tho se airports most likely to have the highest ambient le ad impacts that could lead to ambient lead concentrati ons in excess of the lead NAAQS. As part of the airport monitoring study, monitorin g agencies will be required to conduct lead monitorin g for a period of 12 consecutive months. Monitors will be sited at the location of estimated maximum lead concentratio n in ambient air , taking into account logistical considerationsPage 31 of 67

and the potential for population exposure . To ensure that the results of the study will be directly comparabl e to the lead NAAQS, monitoring agencies will be required to monitor using either Federal Reference Method (FRM) or Fede ral Equivalent Method (FEM) Pb-TSP samplers, and will n ot be

allowed to use Pb-PM 10 samplers for the study. Any monitoring location that exceeds 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 acc ording to 40 CFR part 58 paragraph 4.5(c). Data collected during the monitoring study will be reported to the AQS ac cording to 40 CFR part 58.16. Data from this monitoring study will be used to as sess the need for additional lead monitoring at airports . Under EPA’s previously established monitoring network requirements, required source-oriented monitors tha t read above 50 percent of the NAAQS (0.075 μ g/m 3 on a rolling 3- month average) may not be taken down or stop operat ing (40 CFR part 58 Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)). The purpose of that provision is to ensure monitoring of an are a where ambient concentrations could be of concern. EPA co ntinues to believe that this rationale is also applicable t o monitors at airports; therefore, 40 CFR part 58 App endix D,Page 32 of 67

paragraph 4.5(a)(ii) will apply to the results of a irport monitors that show concentrations higher than 50 pe rcent of the NAAQS. Such monitors will remain in operation, affected States will include them in annual monitor ing 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 airpo rts may have the potential to cause or contribute to ambien t lead concentrations that exceed the lead NAAQS, we will consider use of the RA authority to require monitoring at ad ditional airports where appropriate. Finally, data from thi s study will be used in future lead NAAQS reviews when cons idering requirements for monitoring at airports. VI. Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements We are revising the non-source-oriented lead monit oring requirements. We are requiring lead monitoring at NCore sites in CBSA with a population greater than 500,00 0 people in lieu of the requirement for non-source-oriented monitoring in each CBSA with a population of 500,00 0 people or more. This section summarizes what we proposed, the comments we received and our response to these comm ents, and our final decision and rationale for the revisi ons to the non-source-oriented monitoring requirement.Page 33 of 67

A. What We Proposed for Non-Source Oriented Monito ring We proposed to replace the existing requirement to have one non-source-oriented monitor in each CBSA with a population greater than 500,000 people with the req uirement to monitor lead at NCore sites. We indicated that theexisting requirement was intended to monitor noninventoried lead sources such as closed industrial sources, hazardous waste sites, and construction and demolit ion projects. We noted that non-inventoried sources wo uld be better addressed under the existing source-oriented monitoring requirements, and that the existing RA a uthority could be used to require source-oriented monitoring at locations where it was suspected that a non-invento ried source was likely to cause an exceedence of the lea d NAAQS. We discussed the original objectives for non-source

oriented monitors (i.e., measuring typical neighbor hoodscale lead concentrations in urban areas so we can better understand the risk posed by lead to the general po pulation and provide information that could assist with the determination of nonattainment boundaries) and that nonsource-oriented sites are important to support the development of long-term trends at typical concentr ations sites. We noted that these objectives match those of the multi-pollutant NCore network required under sectio n 3 ofPage 34 of 67

Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. We also noted that m any NCore sites will have the low-volume PM 10 sampler appropriate for conducting Pb-PM 10 monitoring, reducing the cost and time necessary to implement the non-source

oriented monitoring requirements. Due to the many advantages of including lead monitoring at NCore si tes rather than having separate non-source-oriented mon itoring requirements, we proposed to revise the existing no nsource-oriented monitoring requirements (paragraph 4.5(b) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58) to require lead mo nitoring at all NCore sites in place of the current CBSA pop ulationbased requirements. Finally, we requested comments on whether lead monitoring should be required at all N Core 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 exist ing requirement to have one non-source-oriented monitor in each CBSA with a population greater than 500,000 people. Of these, three supported the proposed change to requi re lead monitoring at all NCore sites, six supported changi ng the requirement to require lead monitoring at only urba n NCore sites, and no comments supported maintaining the ex istingPage 35 of 67

non-source-oriented monitoring requirement. In add ition, two commenters requested we provide guidance on whe n the RA authority should be used to require monitoring at n oninventoried 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-source-oriented lead monitoring using t he NCore network but recommended that EPA require monitoring only at NCore sites located in larger urban areas (i.e., CB SA with a population greater than 500,000). NACAA indicate d that doing so would allow States to use their limited re sources to focus non-source-oriented monitoring and control strategies in the most sensitive areas. NESCAUM co mmented that the proposed inclusion of the rural NCore site s is inconsistent with the monitoring goal and would be a waste of State resources. New York commented that in man y CBSA, the tentatively approved NCore monitoring location is probably well suited for non-source-oriented monito ring objectives, but that there is no need to monitor le ad at the rural NCore sites. North Carolina commented th at using the NCore sites provides efficient use of EPA and S tate resources and provides data on background levels of lead most cost-effectively. Wisconsin supported populat ion-Page 36 of 67

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 provid e valuable data on multi-pollutant exposures in citie s and towns across the county. However, they added that inclusion of lead at NCore sites does not sufficien tly address all of the original objectives of the non-s ourceoriented monitoring, and that the RA authority is n ot adequate to ensure that non-inventoried sources tha t 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 re vised to provide additional guidance to States on monitoring noninventoried sources that have the potential to exce ed the NAAQS. We agree that additional guidance is needed on identifying locations that have the potential to ex ceed the lead NAAQS due to re-suspension of deposited lead a nd, as discussed below, are clarifying the language for th e 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 SitesPage 37 of 67

(NATTS) where measuring lead at NCore is either imp ractical or the alternative site would provide more useful information on urban lead concentrations. We note that lead measurements taken at NATTS sites would satisf y the objectives for non-source-oriented monitoring. Furthermore, we proposed to require lead non-source

oriented monitoring at NCore in part due to expecte d efficiencies (i.e., use of the same equipment neede d for

PM 10-2.5 mass measurements). We believe that the requested flexibility is appropriate for situations where non -NCore sites such as NATTS sites can meet the non-source-o riented monitoring objectives at a lower cost to monitoring agencies. 8

Two commenters noted that the non-source-oriented l ead monitoring sites will be the only lead monitoring s ite in many primary quality assurance organizations (PQAO) . The collocation requirement in Appendix A to 40 CFR par t 58, paragraph 3.3.4.3, would require these PQAO to coll ocate a second lead monitor at each of the non-source-orien ted lead monitoring sites, nearly doubling the cost of non-s ourceoriented lead monitoring in these CBSA. Both comme nters questioned the need for such extensive collocation when

8 Note that some NATTS sites do not use FRM/FEM met hods. If a NATTS site is to be used to meet the non-source-oriented monitoring requirement, the monitoring agency would be require d to switch to an FRM/FEM method.Page 38 of 67

lead concentrations are expected to be well below t he lead NAAQS at the non-source-oriented lead monitoring si tes. We agree with the commenters that, as currently writte n, the collocation requirement would lead to an unnecessar ily high level of collocation at the non-source-oriented mon itoring sites. We have modified the quality assurance requ irements to allow the 15 percent collocation requirement to be based on the entire NCore network rather than on a per PQ AO basis which is consistent with the PM 10-2.5 collocation requirement for NCore sites. C. Final Decision on Non-Source-Oriented Monitorin g 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 rev oking the existing requirement for non-source-oriented mo nitoring (40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(b)). Al so, we are revoking the existing requirement to conduct le ad monitoring at 10 NCore sites because it is redundan t to the new non-source-monitoring requirement being promulg ated 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 inform ation on typical urban lead exposures. In addition, we are revising the RA authority (40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, parag raphPage 39 of 67

4.5(c)) provision to clarify that the RA may requir e 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 t o be based on the entire NCore network rather than based on each PQAO. VII. Monitor Deployment Schedule We are requiring that monitoring agencies install and begin operation of source-oriented monitors near le ad 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 [insert date 12 months after da te of publication in the Federal Register ]. We are requiring monitoring agencies to install and begin operation of nonsource-oriented monitors at NCore sites (or approve d alternative sites) in CBSA with a population of 500 ,000 people or more by [insert date 12 months after date of publication in the Federal Register ]

. We are also requiring that monitoring agencies update their annual monito ring network plans by July 1, 2011, to incorporate plans for all required source-oriented (including airports) and n onsource-oriented lead monitors. This section summar izesPage 40 of 67

what we proposed, the comments we received and our response to these comments, and our final decision and ratio nale for the final monitoring deployment schedule. A. What We Proposed for Monitor Deployment Schedul e 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 b egin operation of source-oriented monitors near lead sou rces emitting 0.50 tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy. We also requested comment on staggering the monitor deploym ent 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-ori ented monitors near lead sources emitting 1.0 tpy or more

. We proposed to require monitoring agencies to comme nce lead sampling at NCore sites when NCore sites are t o become operational no later than January 1, 2011. Monitor ing 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 ne cessaryPage 41 of 67

PM 10 sampler needed to conduct Pb-PM 10 sampling due to the existing requirement to conduct PM 10-2.5 sampling. As such, we proposed to require monitoring agencies to comme nce lead sampling at NCore sites when NCore sites are to bec ome 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 s upported allowing for a longer deployment period. NACAA rec ommended that States’ new source-oriented monitoring be depl oyed over a two year period which would give State and l ocal agencies adequate time to adjust their resources an d ensure that new monitors are properly sited and supported. Iowa commented that any new source-oriented monitors req uired under the provisions of this rule should be install ed over a two year period, with the first tier of source-or iented monitors operational by January 2012, and the secon d tier of monitors by January 2013. Iowa states that this would allow States adequate time to refine emissions esti mates by use of stack tests, to model the refined estimates, and to attempt to locate monitoring sites in the "hot spot s" indentified by the modeling. Other monitoring agen cies requesting a deployment period longer than one year include Texas, New York, Illinois, and Arkansas.Page 42 of 67

We recognize the difficulty monitoring agencies wil l have in deploying the newly required monitors. How ever, as is discussed below, we believe it is feasible for monitoring agencies to deploy the monitors necessar y to comply with this final rule within one year. We no te that the estimated number of new sites that States will need to site and install (or receive waivers for) in this f inal rule is 111 9 , which is 50 less than the number estimated based on the proposed rule. Following the 2008 rev ision, monitoring agencies were able to install approximat ely 100 new lead sites, and were granted waivers for an add itional 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 dat es of the required revision to the lead monitoring pla n 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

9 The total number of newly required lead sites is 174. However, this number includes 63 NCore sites which have already b een sited and installed due to the existing requirements for inst alling and operating NCore sites.Page 43 of 67

the timing of this final rule, the proposed deadlin e of 6- months following the final rule ([insert date 6 mon ths after date of publication in the Federal Register ]) 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 pla ns due to the proximity of the two dates. Several commenters noted a discrepancy in the requ ired dates in the preamble to the proposed rule and the proposed regulatory language. We note that the proposed reg ulatory language published in the Federal Register inadvertently indicated dates for the required plan and installat ion and operation of new monitors based on the date of the proposed rule. The preamble correctly indicated that the pr oposed 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 a nd begin operation of source-oriented monitors near le ad sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more but less than 1.0 tpy and at the 15 airports identified for the airport monit oring study by [insert date 12 months after date of publi cation in the Federal Register ], one year from the date of publication of this final rule. We estimate thatPage 44 of 67

monitoring agencies will be required to site and in stall up to 111 new source-oriented monitors 10 based on the final monitoring requirements. This number is slightly h igher than the 100 monitors that have already been instal led near sources emitting 1.0 tpy or more. We believe monit oring agencies can install the newly required source-orie ntedmonitoring sites within one year of the publication of this final rule especially in light of the experience an d success achieved by monitoring agencies in complyin g with the previous source-oriented-monitoring requirement

. We are requiring monitoring agencies to install an d begin operation of non-source-oriented monitors at NCore sites in CBSA with a population of 500,000 people o r more by [insert date 12 months after date of publication in the

Federal Register ]. To allow monitoring agencies sufficient time to plan for and install any necessary equipmen t, we are allowing monitoring agencies a reasonable time, 1 year, from the time of publication of this final rule to comply with the non-source-oriented monitoring requirement s. We are also requiring that monitoring agencies upd ate their annual monitoring network plans by July 1, 20 11, to incorporate plans for all required source-oriented (including airports) and non-source-oriented lead

10 The total number of new source oriented sites in stalled will likely be less as this estimate does not account for waive rs.Page 45 of 67

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). VII. References Cavender, K. (2008). Development of Final Source-o riented Monitoring Emission Threshold. Memorandum to the L ead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. Availa ble online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/lead/data/200 810 15Cavender.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 Airpor t Monitoring Study. Memorandum to the Lead NAAQS Rev iew Docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735.

Jackson, L. (2009). Letter to petitioners. EPA-HQ -OAR2006-0735. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/OAR.09.000.7687.pd f

NRDC, et al. (2009). Petition to Reconsider. EPA- HQ-OAR2006-0735. Available online at:Page 46 of 67 http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/0122009petitionRec ons ideration.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007) Polic y Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information: Final Staff Paper. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pb/data/20071 101 _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 onl ine

at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/tsd_avgas_lead_inv ent ory_2002.pdf

White, J. (2010). Environmental Justice Analysis f or Revisions to Lead Monitoring Requirements. Memoran dum to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-

0735.

IX. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial revie w of this final rule is available by filing a petition f or review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Distric t of Columbia Circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date ofPage 47 of 67

publication in the Federal Register ]. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements esta blished by this action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enf orce these requirements. X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Octob er 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory act ion” because it was deemed to “raise novel legal or poli cy issues.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review un der Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in respo nse to OMB recommendations have been documented in the doc ket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this ru le 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 enforce able until OMB approves them. The information collected and reported under 40 CF R part 58 is needed to determine compliance with the NAAQS , to characterize air quality and associated health andPage 48 of 67

ecosystem impacts, to develop emissions control str ategies, and to measure progress for the air pollution progr am. The final amendments revise the technical requirements for lead monitoring sites, require the siting and operation of additional lead ambient air monitors, and the repor ting of the collected ambient lead monitoring data to EPA’s AQS database. We have estimated the burden based on th e final monitoring requirements of this rule. Based on the se requirements, the annual average reporting burden f or 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 p er 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 informa tion unless it displays a currently valid OMB control nu mber. 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 requ irements contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility ActPage 49 of 67

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requi rements 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 busin esses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdi ctions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a s mall business as defined by the Small Business Administr ation (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 w ith 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 dominan t in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this fin al 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 rulePage 50 of 67

establishes monitoring requirements for State and l ocal (where applicable) monitoring agencies.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not contain a federal mandate that m ay 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 wit h an increase of $1,910,059 per year from present levels . Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sec tions

202 or 205 of UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements o f section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulato ry requirements that might significantly or uniquely a ffect small governments. Small governments that may be a ffected by the amendments are already meeting similar requi rements 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 implicati ons. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and thePage 51 of 67

states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of govern ment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule does not alter the relationship between the federal governme nt and the States regarding the establishment and implemen tation 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 consist ent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA an d state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited c omment on the proposed rule from state and local officials

. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordi nation with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, No vember 9, 2000). It does not have a substantial direct ef fect on one or more Indian tribes, since tribes are not obl igated to adopt or implement any NAAQS. Thus, Executive O rder 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. 1988 5, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulator y actions that concern health or safety risks, such t hat thePage 52 of 67

analysis required under section 5-501 of the Execut ive Order has the potential to influence the regulation . This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 beca use it does not establish an environmental standard intend ed to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regu lations That significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distributi on, or

Use This action is not a “significant energy action” a s defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a signific ant 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 lea d monitors nationwide. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Ac t Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 1 04-113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use volunt ary consensus standards in its regulatory activities un less to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standar ds are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications , testPage 53 of 67

methods, sampling procedures, and business practice s) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus sta ndards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, thr ough OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to us e available and applicable voluntary consensus standa rds. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any volu ntary

consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Addr ess Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L owIncome Populations

. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environment al justice. Its main provision directs federal agenci es, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by la w, 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.Page 54 of 67

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 theref ore effectively strengthens the lead monitoring require ments and, in turn, may increase the public health protec tion 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 monitori ng of airports which emit less than 1.0 try of lead. The rule also replaces the existing non-source-oriented moni toring requirement for lead monitoring in large urban area s with a requirement that lead be added to the list of pollu tants to be monitored at NCore sites in CBSA with a populati on 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 deter mine 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 th ePage 55 of 67

lowering the emissions threshold from 1.0 tpy to 0. 5 tpy. The analytical approach, which assumed “proximity-t o-asource” as a surrogate for determining a population ’s potential exposure to lead emissions from these sou rces, evaluated several socio-demographic parameters and compared them against the respective national averages for t he same parameters. The socio-demographic parameters used in the analy sis included estimates of the percentage of the populat ion near the sources that were White, Minority (i.e., all No nWhite), African American, Native American, Other/Multiracial, and Hispanic. The study also ev aluated the percentages of the same populations less than o r equal to 18 years of age; greater than or equal to 65 yea rs of age; and the total below poverty line. The analysis determined the composition of those census blocks that lay within a circular distance o f one mile (or approximately 1.6 kilometers) of affected sources with respect to the selected socio-demographic para meters. The study area radius (i.e., 1 mile) was used becau se available data generally indicate that lead emissio ns from such sources are rapidly deposited and ambient lead concentrations decline quickly with distance from t he emission source

.Page 56 of 67

The analysis indicated that the aggregate populatio n living within a one-mile area around these sources tends to have lower proportions of Whites and higher proport ions of African-Americans, Hispanics, and “Other and Multi- racial” populations than their respective national averages . The Minority (i.e., total Non-White) population in thes e areas is greater than the national average (i.e., 29% ver sus 25% respectively). The Tribal population percentages a re 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 w ithin the area of study is higher than the national avera ge (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 simil ar for those within the area of study and the national ave rage. Based on the fact that this proposed rule does not allow emission increases, but promulgates revisions to existing monitoring requirements that lower the thr eshold at which monitoring by state and local monitoring a gencies would be required, the EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adve rse human health or environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or Tribal populations. Furthermore, to the extentPage 57 of 67

that any minority, low income, or Tribal subpopulat ion is disproportionately impacted by current lead emissio ns as a result of the proximity to lead emissions sources, that group also stands to benefit from the improvement i n compliance with the lead NAAQS which will result fr om 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 docum ented in each state’s monitoring plan and are available for public review and comment. In addition, EPA defines “Environmental Justice” to include meaningful invol vement of all people regardless of race, color, national o rigin, or income with respect to the development, implemen tation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote meaningful involvement, EPA ha s developed a communication and outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to this pro posed rule, are aware of its content, and have an opportu nity to comment during the comment period. During the comm ent period, EPA will publicize the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, Tribal newsletters, EJ listservs, and the internet, including the Office of Policy (OP) Rulem akingPage 58 of 67

Gateway web site ( http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/ ). EPA will also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why i s this important for my community) for EJ community groups and conduct conference calls with interested communitie s. 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 submi t 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 r ule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller Gener al 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 [insert date 30 days af ter publication in the Federal Register ].Page 59 of 67

Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requiremen ts

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58 Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordke eping requirements, Ambient air monitoring.

______________________ Dated:

______________________ Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.Page 60 of 67

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, c hapter I, part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amend ed 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, 761 4,

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 period ic network

assessment. (a) * * * (4) A plan for establishing source-oriented Pb mo nitoring sites in accordance with the requirements of append ix D to this part for Pb sources emitting 1.0 tpy or greater sha ll be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator no late r than July 1, 2009, as part of the annual network plan require d in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The plan shall p rovide for the required source-oriented Pb monitoring sites fo r Pb sources emitting 1.0 tpy or greater to be operational by Ja nuary 1, 2010. A plan for establishing source-oriented Pb m onitoringPage 61 of 67

sites in accordance with the requirements of append ix D to this part for Pb sources emitting equal to or greater th an 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 monitor ing sites for Pb sources emitting equal to or greater than 0.50 t py but less than 1.0 tpy to be operational by [insert date 12 m onths after date of publication in the Federal Register ].

* * * * *

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, 201 1, 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 moni toring as required under 40 CFR part 58 appendix D paragraph 3(b), or approved alternative non-source-oriented Pb monitor ing sites, shall begin Pb monitoring in accordance with all of the requirements of this part, including the requiremen ts of appendices A, C, D, E, and G to this part no later than [insertPage 62 of 67

date 12 months after date of publication in the Fed eral Register ].

* * * * *

4. Appendix A to Part 58 is amended by revising paragr aph 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. Collocated Sampling. PQAO that have a combination of source and non-source–oriente d sites (unless the only non-source-oriented site is an NCo re site) will follow the procedures described in sections 3.3.1 o f this appendix with the exception that the first collocat ed Pb site selected must be the site measuring the highest Pb concentrations in the network. If the site is impr actical, alternative sites, approved by the EPA Regional Adm inistrator, 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 s ampling requirements for PQAO that only have Pb monitoring at a nonsource-oriented NCore site for sampling required un der 40 CFRPage 63 of 67

58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(b) shall be implement ed as described in section 3.2.6 of this appendix with th e 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 A mbient Air Quality Monitoring

* * * * * 3. * * * (b) The NCore sites must measure, at a minimum, PM 2.5 particle mass using continuous and integrated/filte r-based samplers, speciated PM 2.5 , PM 10–2.5 particle mass, speciated PM 10–

2.5 , O 3 , SO 2 , CO, NO/NO y , 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) or greater shall also measure Pb either as Pb-TSP or PbPM 10 . The EPA Regional Administrator may approve an al ternativePage 64 of 67

location for the Pb measurement where the alternati ve location would be more appropriate for logistical reasons an d the measurement would provide data on typical Pb concen trations in

the CBSA.

* * * * * (c) [Reserved.]

* * * * * 4.5 * * * (a) State and, where appropriate, local agencies are required to conduct ambient air Pb monitoring n ear Pb sources which are expected to or have been shown to contribute to a maximum Pb concentration in ambient air in exc ess of the NAAQS, taking into account the logistics and potent ial for population exposure. At a minimum, there must be o ne sourceoriented SLAMS site located to measure the maximum Pb concentration in ambient air resulting from each no n-airport Pb source which emits 0.50 or more tons per year and f rom 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 a s improved emissions factors or site-specific data) taking int o account logistics and the potential for population exposure

. (i) One monitor may be used to meet the requireme nt in paragraph 4.5(a) for all sources involved when the location ofPage 65 of 67

the maximum Pb concentration due to one Pb source i s expected to also be impacted by Pb emissions from a nearby sour ce (or multiple sources). This monitor must be sited, tak ing into account logistics and the potential for population exposure, where the Pb concentration from all sources combine d is expected to be at its maximum. (ii) The Regional Administrator may waive the req uirement 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 concentr ation in ambient air in excess of 50 percent of the NAAQS (b ased on historical monitoring data, modeling, or other mean s). The waiver must be renewed once every 5 years as part o f the network assessment required under §58.10(d). (iii) State and, where appropriate, local agencie s are required to conduct ambient air Pb monitoring near each of the airports listed in Table D-3A for a period of 12 co nsecutive months commencing no later than [insert date 12 mon ths after date of publication in the Federal Register ]. Monitors shall be sited to measure the maximum Pb concentration in am bient 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 t hat exceeds 50 percent of the Pb NAAQS on a rolling 3-month ave rage (asPage 66 of 67

determined according to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix R) shall become a required monitor under paragraph 4.5(c) of this A ppendix, and shall continue to monitor for Pb unless a waiver is granted allowing it to stop operating as allowed by the pro visions in paragraph 4.5(a)(ii) of this appendix. Data collec ted shall be submitted to the Air Quality System database accord ing 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 a re required to conduct non-source-oriented Pb monitori ng at eachPage 67 of 67

NCore site required under paragraph 3 of this appen dix in a CBSA with a population of 500,000 or more. (c) The EPA Regional Administrator may require add itional monitoring beyond the minimum monitoring requiremen ts contained in paragraphs 4.5(a) and 4.5(b) where the likelihoo d of Pb air quality violations is significant or where the emis sions density, topography, or population locations are co mplex and varied. EPA Regional Administrators may require ad ditional monitoring at locations including, but not limited to, those near existing additional industrial sources of Pb, recently closed industrial sources of Pb, airports where pis ton-engine aircraft emit Pb, and other sources of re-entrained Pb dust.

* * * * *