6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

RIN 2060–A2060 Revisions to Lead Ambient Monitoring Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. SUMMARY: The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008, (effective date January 12, 2009) that revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead (Pb) and associated monitoring requirements. This action pr oposes revisions to the monitoring requirements in that fi nal rule pertaining to where state and local monitoring agen cies (“monitoring agencies”) would be required to conduc t Pb monitoring. DATES: Comments must be received by [insert date 45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register ]
. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735 by one of the following method s:

• http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
.

• Fax: 202-566-9744.2

• Mail: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735, Environment al Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvan ia Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your co mments on the information collection provisions to the Off ice of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Manag ement and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 1 7 th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503.

• Hand Delivery: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Room 333 4, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. Such delive ries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2006-0735. The EPA’s policy is that all commen ts received will be included in the public docket without chang e and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment i ncludes information claimed to be Confidential Business Inf ormation (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is rest ricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consid er to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system,3

which means EPA will not know your identity or cont act information unless you provide it in the body of yo ur comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA withou t going through www.regulations.gov , your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available o n the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact inform ation in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM yo u submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical diffi culties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not b e able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avo id the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information abo ut EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm

. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statu te. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available do cket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation4

Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Ro om 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 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, and the telephone n umber for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566- 1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Mr. Kevin Cavender, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C304-06, Research Tria ngle Park, NC 27711; telephone: 919-541-2364; fax: 919-541-1903; email: cavender.kevin@epa.gov
. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for
EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. F or CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EP A, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then ident ify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specif ic information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete5

version of the comment that includes information cl aimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the inf ormation claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in t he public docket. Information so marked will not be disclose d except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal R egister date, and page number).

• Follow directions – the agency may ask you to respo nd to specific questions or organize comments by referenc ing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section n umber.

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternat ives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to al low for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concer ns, and suggest alternatives.6

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment pe riod deadline identified. B. Availability of Related Information A number of documents relevant to this rulemaking, including the notice of final rulemaking (73 FR 669 64), the notice of proposed rulemaking (73 FR 29184), the ad vance notice of proposed rulemaking (72 FR 71488), the Air Quality Criteria for Lead

(Criteria Document) (USEPA, 2006), the Staff Paper , and other related technical documents are available on EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Techn ology Transfer Network (TTN) web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_inde x.html
. These and other related documents are also availabl e for inspection and copying in the EPA docket identified above. C. When Would a Public Hearing Occur? If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a pub lic hearing concerning this proposed rule by [insert date 10 days after publication in the Federal Register ] , we will hold a public hearing on [insert date 15 days after publication in the Federal Register ] . If [insert date 15 days after publication in the Federal Register ] falls on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, the hearing will be held on the following Monday. Persons7

interested in presenting oral testimony at the hear ing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be held, sho uld contact Kevin A. Cavender at (919) 541– 2364 at least 2 day s in advance of the hearing. If a public hearing is held, it wi ll be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA’s campus located at 109 T.W. Ale xander Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Under CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator d etermines that the provisions of section 307(d) are applicabl e to this proposal and all the procedural requirements of sec tion 307(d) will apply to it. D. How is This Document Organized? The information presented in this document is orga nized as follows: I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments

for EPA? B. Availability of Related Information C. When Would a Public Hearing Occur? D. How is This Document Organized? II. Background III. Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements A. Background on Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements B. Issues With Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements C. Reconsideration of Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements IV. Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements A. Background on Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements B. Issues With Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements C. Reconsideration of Non-Source-Oriented Monitorin g Requirements8

V. Increase in Lead Monitors and Timeline for Deplo ying New Monitors VI. 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 and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significan tly

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 VII. References
II. Background The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008, t hat revised the NAAQS for Pb and associated ambient air Pb monitoring requirements (73 FR 66964, codified at 4 0 CFR part 58). As part of the Pb monitoring requirements, mo nitoring agencies are required to monitor ambient air near P b sources which are expected to or have been shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month average Pb concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. At a minimum, monitoring agencies must monitor near Pb sources that emit 1.0 ton per year (tpy) or more. However, this requirement can be wa ived by the EPA Regional Administrator if the monitoring agency can demonstrate that the source will not contribute to a 3-month9

average Pb concentration in ambient air in excess o f 50 percent of the level of the NAAQS (based on historical moni toring data, modeling, or other means). Monitoring agencies are also currently required to conduct Pb monitoring in large urban areas (identified as C ore Based Statistical Areas, or CBSAs, as defined by the OMB) with a population of 500,000 people or more. The location s for these monitoring sites are intended to measure neighborho od-scale Pb concentrations in urban areas impacted by resuspend ed dust from roadways, closed industrial sources which previousl y were significant sources of Pb, hazardous waste sites, c onstruction and demolition projects, or other fugitive dust sou rces of Pb. Following promulgation of the revised Pb NAAQS and monitoring requirements, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Coalition to End Chi ldhood Lead Poisoning (“the Petitioners”) petitioned (NRDC, 200 9) for a reconsideration of the Pb emission rate at which mo nitoring is required (the “emission threshold,” currently 1.0 t py). On July 22, 2009, the EPA granted the petition to reconside r aspects of the monitoring requirements (Jackson, 2009). In re sponse to the petition, the EPA reviewed and reconsidered the mon itoring requirements and is proposing revisions to the requ irements for both source-oriented and non-source-oriented monito ring for Pb.10

III. Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements The EPA is proposing to change the Pb emission thre shold at which monitoring agencies are presumptively require d to conduct Pb monitoring near a Pb source to 0.50 tpy from an emissions threshold of 1.0 tpy. The EPA is also seeking comm ents on alternative emission thresholds between 0.50 tpy to 1.0 tpy. The following paragraphs discuss the issues conside red, the proposed changes, and our rationale for the propose d changes to the source-oriented monitoring requirements. A. Background on Source-Oriented Monitoring Requir ements In the final revisions to the Pb NAAQS, the EPA no ted that due to the dramatic drop in Pb concentrations since the phase out of Pb in motor vehicle gasoline, the EPA expect ed concentrations of Pb to approach the revised level of the Pb NAAQS primarily near sources of Pb. Accordingly, t he EPA required monitoring near Pb emission sources such a s Pb smelters, metallurgical operations, battery manufac turing, and other source categories that emit Pb. The EPA also noted in the final NAAQS rulemaking th at it is not practical to conduct monitoring at every Pb emi ssion source, nor is it likely that very small Pb emission source s will cause ambient concentrations to exceed the promulgated NA AQS. Therefore, the EPA performed an analysis to determi ne at what level of Pb emissions (the “emissions threshold”) i t may be11

possible for an emission source to cause ambient Pb concentrations to exceed the Pb NAAQS (Cavender, 20 08). This analysis looked at a range of levels and indicated that, under reasonable worst-case conditions, a 0.50 tpy Pb sou rce could cause ambient Pb concentrations to exceed the revis ed Pb NAAQS. The EPA also noted that by basing the monitoring re quirements on worst-case conditions, the EPA would be “placing an unnecessary burden on monitoring agencies to evaluate or monito r around sources that may not have a significant potential t o exceed the NAAQS.” As such, the EPA required monitoring agenc ies to take into account Pb sources which are expected to or ha ve been shown to contribute to a maximum Pb concentration in ambi ent air in excess of the NAAQS including, at a minimum, to con duct Pb monitoring [or request monitoring waivers as allowe d for under 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)] n ear Pb sources emitting 1.0 or more tpy. To account for P b sources emitting less than 1.0 tpy of Pb that may have the potential to cause Pb concentrations to exceed the Pb NAAQS, the final rule provided the EPA Regional Administrators the author ity to require additional monitoring beyond the minimum mo nitoring requirements where the likelihood of Pb air quality violations is significant or where the emissions density, topo graphy, or population locations are complex and varied. The E PA projected the source-oriented portion of the network to be up to 13512

monitors based on these requirements and on informa tion available at the time the final rule was published (i.e., the 2002 NEI) 1

. B. Issues With Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirem ents The Petitioners cited several reasons for EPA to re consider the Pb monitoring emission threshold (NRDC, 2009). They noted that the finalized emission threshold of 1.0 tpy wa s above the proposed range of 200 to 600 kilograms per year and , therefore, argued that the EPA failed to provide for proper pu blic comment on the 1.0 tpy threshold. They also argued that th e selection of the 1.0 tpy emission threshold was arbitrary and capricious and that the EPA did not follow its own analysis. Finally, they argued that the 1.0 tpy emission threshold would no t provide for an adequate margin of safety as required by the Cle an Air Act. The EPA granted the petition to reconsider the moni toring emission threshold (Jackson, 2009), and this propos ed rule reflects our reconsideration of the emission thresh old. In addition to the petition to reconsider, the EPA has received informal feedback from members of the Nati onal Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) monitorin g subcommittee regarding monitoring of airports from which Pb is emitted as a result of the use of leaded aviation f uel

1 Note that the 2005 NEI is now available and the EP A has used the Pb emission estimates in the 2005 NEI for estimating the impact of these proposed revisions. Based on the 2005 NEI, 111 source-orien ted monitoring sites would be required under the existing monitoring requireme nts.13

(Cavender, 2009). These NACAA members believe that the final Pb NAAQS rulemaking inappropriately treats airports in the same manner as industrial Pb sources and claim that Pb e missions at airports will have a lesser impact on ambient Pb co ncentrations since the Pb emissions from airplanes taking off fr om or landing at airports are spread out over a larger area, unli ke industrial sources where the emissions may be emitted from a f ew stacks. C. Reconsideration of Source-Oriented Monitoring R equirements The monitoring emission threshold was intended to identify Pb sources which may have the potential to contribu te to or approach an exceedance of the Pb NAAQS and near whi ch Pb monitoring should be conducted (or where a site-spe cific evaluation of the potential for the Pb source to co ntribute to an exceedance of the Pb NAAQS should be performed). The EPA’s analysis to determine the emission threshold relied on three different approaches. One of the three approaches relied on the use of ex isting Pb monitoring data near Pb sources. The EPA believ es this approach provides the best information on the poten tial impact of Pb sources on ambient Pb concentrations because it uses actual source-oriented Pb monitoring data from near actual Pb sources. As such, this approach was reviewed as pa rt of the EPA’s reconsideration. Under this approach, source -oriented Pb monitors within 1 mile of a Pb source (identified f rom the 200214

National Emissions Inventory (NEI)) were identified . This group of sites was then narrowed down to sites near facil ities emitting 1 tpy or more of Pb into the ambient air, and then to sites which were only impacted by one Pb emitting f acility. Also, in cases where more than one monitor was iden tified within 1 mile of the same facility emitting 1 tpy or more of Pb annually, the EPA only used the monitor measuring t he maximum Pb concentration in the analysis. In this manner, the EPA identified seven monitor-facility pairs meeting the emissions and distance criteria. Using data in the Air Quali ty System (AQS) database (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs /) for the years 2003-2005, the EPA developed an estimate of t he maximum 3- month average Pb concentration for each monitoring site. 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 μg/m 3 per tpy. Dividing the level of the Pb NAAQS (0.15 μg/m 3 ) by this ratio provides an estimate of the annual emission level for the facility which would result in ambient Pb concentrations just meeting the Pb NAAQS , referred to here as a “site-specific emission threshold” (see T able 1). Table 1. Data Used to Estimate Facility Impacts Bas ed on Monitoring Data Maximum 3- Month Average NEI 2002

Facility SiteSpecific15

AQS Site Id Pb

Concentration (μg/m 3 ) Emission

Rate (tpy) Ratio

(μg/m 3

- tpy) Emission

Threshold (tpy) 171190010 0.33 1.3 0.3 0.5 340231003 0.18 1.7 0.1 1.5 471870100 0.89 2.6 0.3 0.5 480850009 0.75 3.2 0.2 0.8 420110717 0.40 4.8 0.1 1.5 011090003 1.20 4.5 0.3 0.5 290990013 1.29 58.8 0.02 7.5 This analysis shows that four of these seven Pb sou rces support an emission threshold less than the emissio n threshold of 1.0 tpy set by the final rule on the revised Pb NAAQS. In the final rule, however, the EPA stated that an emi ssion threshold of 1.0 tpy “is more likely to clearly ide ntify sources that would contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS” as compared to a lower emission threshold. Upon further consid eration and based on the information provided in Table 1, the E PA no longer supports an emission threshold of 1.0 tpy. Based o n this sample of Pb sources, it appears that many Pb sources that emit between 0.50 and 1.0 tpy may have the potential to cause am bient Pb concentrations to exceed or approach the Pb NAAQS. A 1.0 tpy emission threshold would not identify these sources . This could result in a large number of areas with a potential to have Pb concentrations above the Pb NAAQS not being properl y monitored and could result in some areas where the NAAQS is e xceeded not being identified as nonattainment for Pb. This res ult would be contrary to the purpose of the NAAQS to protect pub lic health16

with an adequate margin of safety and also to prote ct public welfare. As such, the EPA has reconsidered the emi ssion threshold and proposes to lower the emission thresh old to a level of 0.50 tpy, consistent with the analysis per formed for the final rule (Cavender, 2008). The EPA believes an emission threshold of 0.50 tpy would protect public health w ith an adequate margin of safety. The EPA is also seeking comments on setting an emission threshold between 0.50 tpy and 1.0 tpy, i.e., require monitoring near sources that emit Pb at some level between 0.50 tpy and 1.0 tpy. As discussed above, the EPA has received comments from the NACAA monitoring subcommittee claiming that airport s should not be treated in the same manner as industrial sources of Pb with regards to monitoring requirements (Cavender, 2009) . This perspective is based on the belief that Pb emission s at airports will have a lesser impact on off-airport and on-air port ambient Pb concentrations because the Pb emissions from air planes taking off from or landing at airports are spread out over a larger area resulting in greater dilution of ambient conce ntrations, unlike industrial sources where the bulk of emissio ns may be emitted from a few stacks resulting in relatively h igher concentrations. The EPA has limited quantitative information with w hich to evaluate the impact on either on-airport or off-air port ambient17

Pb concentrations from airports. One study conduct ed near the Santa Monica airport measured a maximum 3-month ave rage Pb concentration of 0.1 μg/m 3 near the runway blast fence (Fine, 2007). Based on the 2002 Pb emission estimate for the Santa Monica airport of 0.4 tpy (USEPA, 2008a), an estima ted sitespecific emission threshold of 0.6 tpy can be calcu lated using the same procedures used to estimate a site-specifi c emission threshold as above [i.e., 0.15 μg/m 3 /(0.1 μg/m 3 / 0.4 tpy) = 0.6 tpy]. This site-specific emission threshold (0.6 t py) falls within the lower end of the range of specific emiss ion thresholds calculated for industrial sources above (0.50 to 7.5 tpy), and does not support the case for different t reatment of airports. The EPA is not aware of similar studies where lead was monitored at or near the maximum impact area on airport property and does not believe there are sufficient data to develop or justify a separate emission threshold fo r airports. As such, the EPA proposes to treat airports identic ally to other sources of Pb, and require monitoring agencies to c onduct Pb monitoring (or request a monitoring waiver) at or n ear airports that emit 0.50 tpy of Pb, as is required for other sources of Pb. The EPA solicits comments on this issue, on th e availability of other data that may be useful in se tting an alternative emission threshold for airports, and wh ether EPA should consider other factors or criteria that migh t be useful18

in determining if a different emission threshold is appropriate for airports. In addition, the EPA is proposing to edit the wordi ng of the source-oriented monitoring requirement [40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)] for clarity. The EPA believes the edits are merely editorial and are consistent with the purpose and intent of the existing requirement. IV. Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements The EPA is proposing to replace the current non-so urceoriented monitoring approach with the requirement f or Pb monitoring at the national multi-pollutant monitori ng network known as NCore. The following paragraphs discuss t he issues considered, the proposed changes, and our rationale for the proposed changes to the non-source-oriented monitor ing requirements. A. Background on Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements As part of the November 2008 revisions to the Pb N AAQS, the EPA required one Pb monitor site in each Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA) with a population of 500,000 people or more - leading to 101 monitors. These monitors are to be located to measure neighborhood scale Pb concentrations in urb an areas impacted by re-suspended dust from roadways, closed industrial sources which previously were significant sources o f Pb,19

hazardous waste sites, construction and demolition projects, or other fugitive dust sources of Pb. The EPA had proposed (73 FR 29184) and taken commen ts on a smaller non-source-oriented Pb monitoring network, that included 1 monitor in each CBSA with a population of 1,000,0 00 or more people, located to measure typical neighborhood sca le Pb concentrations in urban areas – which would have re quired 50 monitors. The EPA noted that data from these non-s ourceoriented monitors would be helpful in better charac terizing population exposure to ambient air related Pb and m ay assist in determining nonattainment boundaries. Concerns were raised during review of the draft fin al notice that non-inventoried Pb sources in urban are as such as closed industrial sources, hazardous waste sites, a nd construction and demolition projects could potentia lly result in ambient Pb concentrations in excess of the Pb NAAQS . To address these concerns, the EPA modified the siting criteri a to require non-source-oriented monitors to be sited to evaluat e these noninventoried Pb sources. The EPA also lowered the p opulation threshold from requiring monitoring at CBSAs with a population of 1,000,000 people or more to requiring monitoring at CBSAs with a population of 500,000 people or more. B. Issues With Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requ irements20

Some sources of Pb which are not in the current NE I that could result in ambient Pb concentrations in excess of the Pb NAAQS have been identified (USEPA, 2008b). However , as currently written, it is not clear that the non-sou rce-oriented monitoring requirements would result in monitors ne ar such noninventoried sources. The non-source-oriented monit ors are to be sited as neighborhood scale monitors. Yet, Pb conc entrations drop off rapidly with distance away from a source, such that it is unlikely that non-source-oriented monitors would identify the maximum Pb concentration near non-inventoried sourc es where the Pb NAAQS could be exceeded. Furthermore, locations near noninventoried sources outside of CBSAs with a populat ion of 500,000 people or more would not be addressed by th e current non-source-oriented requirements and, as such, thes e sources would not necessarily be monitored. The final siti ng requirements also would not support the measurement of trends in typical urban Pb concentrations, one of EPA’s origi nal objectives. C. Reconsideration of Non-Source-Oriented Monitori ng Requirements After further consideration, the EPA believes the most appropriate approach to achieve the placement of mo nitors near non-inventoried sources that have the potential to cause an exceedance of the NAAQS is through the existing sou rce-oriented21

monitoring network requirements (paragraph 4.5(a) o f Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58) which require monitoring agencie s to conduct Pb monitoring at sources “which are expected to or have been shown to contribute to a maximum Pb concentration i n ambient air in excess of the NAAQS” and the EPA Regional Admini strators’ authority to require monitoring “where the likeliho od of Pb air quality violations is significant.” These non-inve ntoried Pb sources may be identified by monitoring agencies, t he EPA, or concerned citizens as part of the network plan revi ew and approval requirements. Furthermore, monitors sited under the source-oriented monitoring requirements are require d to be sited at the location of estimated maximum concentration and, as such, better serve the purpose of identifying violations of the Pb NAAQS. The EPA believes it is appropriate to re-emphasize the objectives identified in the proposed rule for non- sourceoriented monitors, i.e., measuring typical neighbor hood-scale Pb concentrations in urban areas so we can better unde rstand the risk posed by Pb to the general population, and to provide information that could assist with the determinatio n of nonattainment boundaries. In addition, the EPA bel ieves nonsource-oriented sites are important to support the development of long-term trends at typical concentrations sites
.22

The EPA notes that these objectives match those of the multi-pollutant NCore network required under sectio n 3 of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 and also believes that EPA’s increasing support for multi-pollutant measurements should be considered in the design of the Pb network. The NC ore network is intended to be a long-term, multi-pollutant, mon itoring network that not only provides information useful t o NAAQS attainment decisions, but also to provide data need ed to broaden the understanding of air quality conditions and pol lutant interactions, evaluate air quality models, develop emission control strategies, and support long-term health st udies. We also note that Pb monitoring is already required in at least one NCore site per EPA Region. As such, one option for implementing Pb non-source-oriented monitoring is to require Pb monitoring at all NCore sites rather than the population-based ap proach currently used. This option provides a similar res ult to that of basing the non-source-oriented monitoring requir ements on population (as was established in the November 2008 final rule), and has additional similarities with the provisions adopted in the final rule on the revised Pb NAAQS including:

o The size of the network would be approximately the same as the original proposal, but would span a wider range of populations. The NCore network will consist of approximately 80 sites, with approximately 50 of th ese23

being in urban areas with a population of 500,000 p eople or

more.

o NCore sites will be neighborhood-scale sites., and

o NCore sites are long-term trends sites suitable for longterm population exposure studies. In addition, many NCore sites will have the low-vol ume PM 10 sampler necessary to conduct Pb monitoring, reducin g the cost and time necessary to implement the non-source-orie nted monitoring requirements. 2 Additional information on the objectives and specific sites for NCore can be obta ined online
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.html . Due to the many advantages of including Pb monitoring at NCore sites rather than having separate non-source-oriented monitoring requirements, the EPA is proposing to revise the ex isting nonsource-oriented monitoring requirements (paragraph 4.5(b) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58) to require Pb monitor ing at NCore sites in place of the current CBSA population-based requirements. The EPA seeks comments on the use of the NCore network to meet the non-source-oriented monitoring objectives

2 EPA expects that low-volume PM 10 samplers will be used at many NCore sites in order to meet the existing requirement for PM 10-2.5 measurements. However, EPA notes that some NCore sites may use a dichotomous s ampler or a continuous PM 10- 2.5 sampler that would not be compatible with Pb-PM 10 sampling such that these sites would need to add an additional low-volume PM 10 sampler to perform PbPM 10 sampling. In addition, if Pb-PM 10 concentrations are found to be greater than 0.10 μg/m 3 , a Pb-TSP sampler would be required at the NCore s ite according to paragraph 2.10.1.1 of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58, within 6 months.24

for Pb. The EPA also seeks comments on if Pb monit oring should be required at all NCore sites, or only urban NCore sites. V. Increase in Lead Monitors and Timeline for Deplo ying New Monitors These proposed revisions to the monitoring requirem ents will result in an increase in the number of Pb moni tors that monitoring agencies must deploy and operate relativ e to the estimated number of monitors for the November 2008 final rule. Based on the 2005 NEI and the 2002 estimates for Pb emissions from airports (EPA, 2008a), the current monitoring requirements would require up to 212 Pb monitors - 111 source-or iented monitors 3 (106 industrial and 5 airport) and 101 non-sourceoriented monitors. Based on the monitoring require ments proposed here, the number of total required monitor s increases to 352 monitors with 272 source-oriented monitors ( 217 industrial and 55 airport) and 80 non-source-orient ed monitors. However, we expect that the number of actual Pb mon itors will likely be less than 352 since these values do not t ake into account the probability that monitoring agencies wi ll request and attain waivers from source-oriented monitoring requirements for some of the Pb sources identified as emitting m ore than 0.50 tpy of Pb.

3 Note that the current estimate of the required sou rce-oriented sites is lower than the estimate identified in the final rul e (135 sites) because the current estimate is based on the 2005 NEI rather th an the 2002 NEI.25

This proposal still requires monitoring agencies t o have Pb monitors installed and operating near sources emitt ing 1.0 tpy of Pb or more by January 1, 2010 (i.e., the deadlin e specified in the November 2008 final rule). The EPA proposes that if we revise the monitoring requirements, monitoring agen cies would have 6 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 Pb sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy. The EPA is also proposing to allow 1 year from the date of the final rule for monitoring agencies to install and begin operat ion of source-oriented monitors near Pb sources emitting 0 .50 tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy. The EPA notes that th is timeline would require monitoring agencies to evaluate, site , and install up to 161 source-oriented monitoring sites within 1 year of promulgation of the revised monitoring requirements . While the EPA believes this is feasible, the EPA seeks commen ts on the appropriateness of allowing deployment in phases re quiring half of the sites for sources between 0.50 and 1.0 tpy t o be installed during the first year following promulgat ion of the final monitoring requirements, and for the remainin g half to be installed during the second year following promulga tion of the final monitoring requirements. The EPA also solici ts comments on what factors, such as source category, should be considered26

when prioritizing which sites should be installed d uring the first year versus the second. Monitoring agencies must have installed and begun operation of required NCore sites and monitors (other than Pb ) by January 1, 2011. Because the necessary siting and site ins tallation will already be in place at NCore sites, the EPA do es not believe any additional time beyond that of the exis ting NCore schedule is required for monitoring agencies to ins tall any necessary Pb monitors and begin Pb sampling at NCor e sites. As such, the EPA is proposing to require monitoring ag encies to commence Pb sampling at NCore sites when NCore site s are to be implemented, no later than January 1, 2011. The EPA recognizes that these proposed requirements will likely not be finalized until spring 2010 which is just a few months before monitoring agencies are currently req uired to submit their Pb network plans for non-source-orient ed monitors (July 1, 2010). Because this reconsideration may a ffect where non-source-oriented monitors may be required, the E PA is advising monitoring agencies not site or install no n-sourceoriented monitors until after this reconsideration is complete and the final revisions are promulgated. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review27

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4 , 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action” be cause it was deemed to “raise novel legal or policy issues.” Ac cordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Manageme nt and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and an y changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been d ocumented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this pro posed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA h as been assigned EPA ICR number 0940.23. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requir ements in 40 CFR parts 58 are specifically authorized by s ections 100, 301(a), and 319 of the Clean Air Act. All informat ion submitted to EPA pursuant to the monitoring, recordkeeping, a nd reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality i s made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The information collected and reported under 40 CF R part 58 is needed to determine compliance with the NAAQS, t o characterize air quality and associated health and ecosystem impacts, to develop emissions control strategies, a nd to measure28

progress for the air pollution program. The propos ed amendments would revise the technical requirements for Pb moni toring sites, require the siting and operation of additional Pb a mbient air monitors, and require the reporting of the collecte d ambient Pb monitoring data to EPA’s AQS. The annual average r eporting burden for the collection under 40 CFR part 58 (ave raged over the first 3 years of this ICR) for 140 respondents is estimated to increase by a total of 19,551 labor hours per ye ar with an increase of $1,849,264 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). State, local, and Tribal entities are e ligible for state assistance grants provided by the federal gov ernment under the CAA which can be used for monitors and related activities. 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. To comment on the Agency's need for this informati on, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has e stablished a public docket for this rule, which includes this IC R, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES s ection at the beginning of this notice for where to submit commen ts to EPA.29

Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information a nd Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EP A. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR b etween 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of publication in the Federal Register ] , a comment to OMB is best assured of having its fu ll effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .] . The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the inform ation collection requirements contained in this proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally req uires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requiremen ts under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute u nless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a sign ificant economic impact on a substantial number of small en tities. Small entities include small businesses, small orga nizations, 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’s (SBA ) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisd iction that is a government of a city, county, town, school dis trict or30

special district with a population of less than 50, 000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit ent erprise which is independently owned and operated and is not domi nant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this pro posed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial numb er of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any r equirements on small entities. Rather, this rule establishes m onitoring requirements for state and local (where applicable) monitoring agencies. The EPA continues to be interested in th e potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts. 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 pr ivate sector in any 1 year. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR p art 58 are estimated to increase the ambient air monitoring co sts by $1.8 million and 19,551 labor hours 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 o f section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulato ry31

requirements that might significantly or uniquely a ffect small governments. Small governments that may be affecte d by the proposed amendments are already meeting similar req uirements 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 Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 F R 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accoun table process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have fede ralism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects o n the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and respons ibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implic ations. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government an d the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilitie s among the various levels of government, as specified in Execu tive Order 13132. The rule does not alter the relationship be tween the Federal government and the states regarding the est ablishment32

and implementation of air quality improvement progr ams as codified in the CAA. Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA is mandated to establish NAAQS; however, CAA section 1 16 preserves the rights of states to establish more stringent re quirements if deemed necessary by a state. Furthermore, this rul e does not impact CAA section 107 which establishes that the s tates have primary responsibility for implementation of the NA AQS. Finally, as noted in section D (above) on UMRA, thi s rule does not impose significant costs on state, local, or Tr ibal governments or the private sector. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. However, EPA recognizes that states will have a sub stantial interest in this rule and any corresponding revisio ns to associated air quality surveillance requirements, 4 0 CFR part 58. Therefore, in the spirit of Executive Order 13 132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication s between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically s olicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordin ation 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 any33

NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional comme nt on this proposed action from Tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children F rom Environmental Health & Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19 885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulator y 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 no t establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate heal th or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significant ly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 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 significant adverse effe ct on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This propo sed rule would result in an insignificant increase in power consumption associated with the additional power required to ru n 140 additional monitors nationwide. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act34

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 voluntary c onsensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impra ctical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standar ds (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling pr ocedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted b y voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to p rovide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technica l standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the u se of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Addre ss Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environment al justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make en vironmental justice part of their mission by identifying and ad dressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse hu man health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and35

activities on minority populations and low-income p opulations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this proposed rule wil l not have disproportionately high and adverse human heal th or environmental effects on minority or low-income pop ulations because it increases the level of environmental pro tection for all affected populations without having any disprop ortionately high and adverse human health or environmental effe cts on any population, including any minority or low-income po pulation. 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/pb/data/20081 015Caven der.pdf
Cavender, K. (2009). Summary of Discussion of Pb M onitoring Near Airports at Spring 2009 NACAA Monitoring Subco mmittee Meeting. Memorandum to the Lead NAAQS Review Docke t. EPAHQ-OAR-2006-0735.
Fine, Philip (2007). Community-Scale Air Toxics Mo nitoring - Sun Valley Neighborhood and General Aviation Airpor ts. Presented at the U.S. EPA Air Toxics Data Analysis Workshop36

- Chicago, IL, October 2 - 4, 2007. EPA-HQ-OAR-200 6-0735. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/2 007- workshop/07_100307_fine.pdf
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.pd f

NRDC, et al. (2009). Petition to Reconsider. EPA- HQ-OAR-2006- 0735. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/0122009petitionRec onsidera tion.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006) Air Q uality Criteria for Lead (Second External Review Draft). Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–05/144aB– bB. Available o nline
at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid =158823
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a) Lead Emissions from the Use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the Uni ted States. EPA420-R-08-020. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/tsd_avgas_pb_inven tory_200 2.pdf37

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b) Regu latory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-07 35.Page 37 of 41 Revisions to Lead Ambient Monitoring Requirements

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58

Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and Recordke eping Requirements.

____________________ Dated:

____________________ Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.38

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, c hapter I, part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations is propo sed to be amended as follows: PART 58—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 58 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7410, 7601(a), 7611, 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 onitoring sites in accordance with the requirements of append ix D to this part for Pb sources emitting greater than 0.50 tpy but less than39

1.0 tpy shall be submitted to the EPA Regional Admi nistrator no later than [date 6 months after date of publication of the fin al rule in the Federal Register ] . The plan shall provide for the required source-oriented Pb monitoring sites for Pb sources emitting greater than 0.50 tpy but less than 1.0 tp y to be operational by [date 12 months after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register ]
.

* * * * *

3. Appendix D to Part 58 is amended by revising paragr aph 3.(b), paragraph 4.5.(a), and paragraph 4.5.(b) to read as follows: 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 , Pb, wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, and ambient temperature.
* * * * * 4.5 Lead (Pb) Design Criteria. (a) state and, whe re appropriate, local agencies are required to conduct ambient air40

Pb monitoring near Pb sources which are expected to or have been shown to contribute to a maximum Pb concentration i n ambient air in excess of the NAAQS, taking into account the log istics and potential for population exposure. At a minimum, t here must be one source-oriented SLAMS site located to measure t he maximum Pb concentration in ambient air resulting from each Pb source which emits 0.50 or more tons per year based on either th e 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 in to 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 of 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 in41

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). (b) State and, where appropriate, local agencies a re required to conduct non-source-oriented Pb monitori ng at each NCore site required under paragraph 3 of this appen dix.
* * * * *