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 Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008, (effective date January 12, 2009) that revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead and associated monitoring requirements. This action proposes revi sions to the monitoring requirements in that final rule pertaini ng to where state and local monitoring agencies (“monitoring ag encies”) would be required to conduct lead monitoring. DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 45 days after date of publication in the Federal Regis ter ]
. 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. Deleted: A2060

Deleted: ; amendments

Deleted: Standard Deleted: (Pb)

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: by2

• Mail: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735, Environment al Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T , 1200 Pennsylvania 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, Deleted: 6102T3

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 complete Deleted: Should Deleted: Consider Deleted: Prepare My Comments5

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) website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ lead /s_ lead _index.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. Persons Deleted:

Deleted: pb Deleted: pb

Deleted: Would a Public Hearing Occur7

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 days 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. Monitoring of Airports V. 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 Deleted:

Deleted: This Document Organized

Deleted: A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments¶ Deleted: C. When Would a Public Hearing Occur?¶ D. How is This Document Organized?¶8 Requirements V I . Increase in Lead Monitors and Timeline for Deploy ing New Monitors VI I . 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 I. References
II. Background The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008, t hat revised the NAAQS for lead and associated ambient air lead monitoring requirements (73 FR 66964, codified at 4 0 CFR part 58). As part of the lead monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies are required to monitor ambient air near lead sources which are expected to or have been shown to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. At a mini mum, monitoring agencies must monitor near lead sources that emit 1.0 ton per year (tpy) or more. However, this requirem ent can be waived by the EPA Regional Administrator if the mon itoring Deleted:

.

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb9

agency can demonstrate that the source will not con tribute to a 3-month average lead concentration in ambient air in excess of 50 percent of the level of the NAAQS (based on hist orical monitoring data, modeling, or other means). Monitoring agencies are also currently required to conduct lead monitoring in large urban areas (identified as Cor e 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 lead concentrations in urban areas impacted by resuspend ed dust from roadways, closed industrial sources which previousl y were significant sources of lead , hazardous waste sites, construction and demolition projects, or other fugitive dust sou rces of lead
. Following promulgation of the revised lead NAAQS and monitoring requirements, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) , the Missouri Coalition for the Environment Founda tion, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning (“the Petitioners”) pe titioned (NRDC, 2009) for a reconsideration of the lead emission rate at which monitoring is required (the “emission thresho ld,” currently 1.0 tpy). On July 22, 2009, the EPA gran ted the petition to reconsider aspects of the monitoring re quirements (Jackson, 2009). In response to the petition, the EPA reviewed and reconsidered the monitoring requirements and is proposing Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb10

revisions to the requirements for both source-orien ted and nonsource-oriented monitoring for lead
. III. Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements The EPA is proposing to change the lead emission threshold at which monitoring agencies are presumptively requ ired to conduct lead monitoring near a lead source to 0.50 tpy from an emissions threshold of 1.0 tpy. The EPA is also se eking comments on alternative emission thresholds between 0.50 tpy to 1.0 tpy. The following paragraphs discuss the issu es considered, the proposed changes, and our rationale for the proposed changes to the source-oriented monitoring requirements. A. Background on Source-Oriented Monitoring Requir ements In the final revisions to the lead NAAQS, the EPA noted that , due to the dramatic drop in lead concentrations since the phase

- out of lead in motor vehicle gasoline, we expected concentrations of lead to approach the revised level of the lead NAAQS primarily near sources of lead . Accordingly, the EPA required monitoring near lead emission sources such as lead smelters, metallurgical operations, battery manufac turing, and other source categories that emit lead
. The EPA also noted in the final NAAQS rulemaking th at it is not practical to conduct monitoring at every lead emission source, nor is it likely that very small lead emission sources will cause ambient concentrations to exceed the pro mulgated Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Deleted: Pb Deleted: the EPA Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb11

NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA performed an analysis to determine at what level of lead emissions (the “emissions threshold”) it may be possible for an emission source to cause ambient lead concentrations to exceed the lead NAAQS (Cavender, 2008). This analysis looked at a range of levels and indicated that, under reasonable worst-case conditions, a 0.50 tpy lead source could cause ambient lead concentrations to exceed the revised lead NAAQS. The EPA also noted that , by basing the monitoring requirements on worst-case conditions, the EPA woul d be “placing an unnecessary burden on monitoring agencies to eva luate or monitor around sources that may not have a signific ant potential to exceed the NAAQS.” As such, the EPA required mo nitoring agencies to take into account lead sources which are expected to or have been shown to contribute to a maximum lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the NAAQS including, and, at a minimum, to conduct lead monitoring [or request monitoring waivers as allowed for under 40 CFR part 58, Append ix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)] near lead sources emitting 1.0 or more tpy. To account for lead sources emitting less than 1.0 tpy of lead that may have the potential to cause lead concentrations to exceed the lead NAAQS, the November 12, 2008, final rule provided the EPA Regional Administrators the author ity to require additional monitoring beyond the minimum mo nitoring requirements where the likelihood of lead air quality violations Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb12

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

. B. Issues With Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirem ents The Petitioners cited several reasons for EPA to re consider the lead 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. C. Reconsideration of Source-Oriented Monitoring R equirements

1 Note that the 2005 NEI is now available and the EP A has used the lead emission estimates in the 2005 NEI for estimating t he impact of these proposed revisions. Based on the 2005 NEI, 111 sou rce-oriented monitoring sites would be required under the existing monitori ng requirements. Deleted: Pb

Deleted: In addition to the petition to reconsider, the EPA has received informal feedback from members of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) monitoring subcommittee regarding monitoring of airports from which Pb is emitted as a result of the use of leaded aviation fuel (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 emissions at airports will have a lesser impact on ambient Pb concentrations since the Pb emissions from airplanes taking off from or landing at airports are spread out over a larger area, unlike industrial sources where the emissions may be emitted from a few stacks.¶ Deleted: Pb13

The monitoring emission threshold was intended to identify lead sources which may have the potential to contribute to or approach an exceedance of the lead NAAQS and near which lead monitoring should be conducted (or where a site-spe cific evaluation of the potential for the lead source to contribute to an exceedance of the lead 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 lead monitoring data near lead sources. The EPA believes this approach provides the best information on the poten tial impact of lead sources on ambient lead concentrations because it uses actual source-oriented lead monitoring data from lead sources. As such, this approach was reevaluated as part of the EPA’s reconsideration using updated design-values based on the final data handling procedures contained in 40 CFR part 5 0 Appendix R
. Under this approach, source-oriented lead monitors within 1 mile of a lead source (identified from the 2002 NEI) were identif ied. This group of sites was then narrowed down to sites near facilities emitting 1 tpy or more of lead into the ambient air, and then to sites which were only impacted by one lead emitting facility. Also, in cases where more than one monitor was identified within 1 mile of the same facility emitt ing 1 tpy or more of lead annually, the EPA only used the monitor measuring Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: near actual Pb Deleted: reviewed

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb Deleted: National Emissions Inventory ( Deleted: ) Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb14

the maximum lead concentration in the analysis. In this manner, the EPA identified seven monitor-facility pairs mee ting the emissions and distance criteria. Using data in the Air Quality System (AQS) database (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/ airsaqs/) for the years 2001- 2003, the EPA developed an estimate of the maximum 3-month average lead concentration for each monitoring site 2 . Next, EPA calculated a ratio of the maximum 3-mo nth average concentration to the facility annual emissi ons (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 emiss ion level for the facility which would result in ambient lead concentrations just meeting the lead NAAQS, referred to here as a “sitespecific emission threshold” (see Table 1). Table 1. Data Used to Estimate Facility Impacts Bas ed on Monitoring Data

AQS Site Id Maximum 3-

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

Facility Emission Rate (tpy) Ratio

(μg/m 3

- tpy) SiteSpecific Emission Threshold (tpy) 011090003 1.2 4.5 0. 27 0.5 6 171190010 0. 33 1. 3 0. 25 0.59 290990013 1.8 58.8 0. 0 3 4.90 340231003 0. 23 1.7 0. 14 1.11

2 The estimate of the maximum 3-month average lead c oncentration for this analysis was completed prior to promulgation of the final data handling rules contained in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix R. As such, m inor differences in the estimated maximum 3-month average lead concentratio n appear in the estimates presented below for the same time period. Formatted Table Deleted: Pb

Deleted: -2005
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: 171190010 Deleted: 0.33 Deleted: 1.3 Deleted: 3 Deleted: 340231003 Deleted: 18 Deleted: 7 Deleted: 1 Deleted: 1.5 Deleted: 471870100 Deleted: 0.89 Deleted: 2.6 Deleted: 0.5 Deleted: 480850009 Deleted: 75 Deleted: 3.2 Deleted: 2 Deleted: 0.815

420110717 0. 24 4.8 0. 05 3.00 471870100 0.93 2.6 0.3 6 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 emissio n threshold of 1.0 tpy set by the final rule on the revised lead NAAQS. As part of this reconsideration, the EPA evaluated the stability and sensitivity of the above analysis. T o evaluate the stability of the site-specific emission thresho ld calculation, the EPA performed the same analysis fo r these same seven facilities based on the emission estimates fr om the 2002 and 2005 NEI (Table 2) and estimated design values over the periods 2001-2003 and 2004-2006 (Table 3). Table 4 summarizes the site-specific emission thresholds calculated fo r these periods. Table 2. NEI Emission Estimates

AQS Site Id NEI

Facility ID Facility Name 2002 NEI Facility Emission Rate (tpy) 2005 NEI

Facility Emission Rate (tpy) 011090003 NEI18383 Sanders Lead Co 4.5 4.44 171190010 NEI55848 National Steel Corp - Granite City Div 1.3 0.90

290990013 NEI34412 Doe Run Company, Herculaneum Smelter 58.8 28.09

340231003 NEINJ1603

1 Johnson

Controls 1.7 1.34 Deleted: 40 Deleted: 1 Deleted: 1.5 Deleted: 011090003 Deleted: 1.20 Deleted: 4.5 Deleted: 5 Deleted: 290990013 Deleted: 1.29 Deleted: 58.8 Deleted: 02 Deleted: 7.5 Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb16
Battery Group Inc 420110717 NEI117 East Penn Mfg 4.8 1.88 471870100 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

-- 3 480850009 0.75 0.77 Table 4. Estimated Site-Specific Emission Threshold s Based on Alternative Years

Site-Specific Emission Threshold AQS Site Id 2002 2005 011090003 0.56 0.57 171190010 0.59 0.32 290990013 4.90 2.93 3 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

3 The EPA notes that, for facilities where emissions have dramatically decreased in recent years, re-entrained lead from h istorical deposits may influence the emission threshold calculation to a g reater extent than for facilities where lead emissions have remained const ant. 4 Monitoring data at this site did not meet the minim um completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50 Appendix R for this time period. No design value or site-specific emission factor was calculat ed for this time period.17

Table 4 shows that, in most cases, the calculated e mission threshold remained fairly constant for a given faci lity over time, in general, varying by a factor of 2 or less. Sitespecific emission thresholds varied from 0.32 tpy t o 4.9 tpy with a median of 0.63 tpy. The EPA notes that these metrics may be exaggerated by outliers due to the limited number of facilities be ing evaluated. As such, the EPA looked at how these me trics changed when the extreme sites (i.e., the highest and lowes t emitting sources) were removed. Excluding site 290990013 re sulted in a lowering of the upper range to 3 tpy and the median to 0.62 tpy, but did not affect the minimum (0.32 tpy). Excludi ng site 171190010 increases the minimum to 0.42 and the med ian to 0.64 tpy, but does not affect the maximum. In the final rule, the EPA stated that an emission 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 site-specific emission thresholds estimated above , the EPA has decided to propose a revision to the emission threshold. Based on this sample of lead sources, it appears that lead sources that emit less than 1.0 tpy have the potential to cause ambient lead concentrations to exceed or approach the lead NAAQS. Monitoring agencies would not identify these Deleted: however,

Deleted: information provided in Table 1 Deleted: no longer supports an Deleted: of 1.0 tpy Deleted: Pb Deleted: many Pb Deleted: between 0.50 and Deleted: may Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: A 1.0 tpy emission threshold18

sources based on a 1.0 tpy emission threshold . This could result in a number of areas with the potential to have lead concentrations above the lead NAAQS not being properly monitored and could result in some areas where the NAAQS is e xceeded not being identified as nonattainment for lead. The EPA has reconsidered the emission threshold and proposes to lower the emission threshold to a level of 0.50 tpy, which the EPA believes is consistent with the analysis documented for the final rule (Cavender, 2008 ) and the findings of this reconsideration. If this proposal is final ized, monitoring agencies would be required to conduct mo nitoring near lead sources that emit 0.50 tpy or greater, or requ est a waiver as allowed by 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii ). The EPA believes an emission threshold of 0.50 tpy would adequately identify those sources with the potential to exceed the NAAQS without placing undue burden on monitorin g agencies. The EPA is also seeking comments and supporting information that could be used in setting an emission threshold lower than 0.5 tpy as well as higher than 0.5 tpy. 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 do not change the pu rpose and intent of the existing requirement. Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" Deleted: large Deleted: a Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb. This result would be contrary to the purpose of the NAAQS to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety and also to protect public welfare. As such, the

Deleted: performed

Deleted: protect public health Deleted: an adequate margin of safety. Deleted: on Deleted: 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 airports 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 emissions at airports willhave a lesser impact on offairport and on-airport ambient Pb concentrations because the Pb emissions from airplanes taking off from or landing at airports are spread out over a larger area resulting in greater dilution of ambient concentrations, unlike industrial sources where the bulk of emissions may be emitted from a few stacks resulting in relatively Deleted: concentrations.19

IV. Monitoring of Airports 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 lead is emitted as a result of the use of leaded aviation f uel (Cavender, 2009a). These NACAA members believe tha t the final lead NAAQS rulemaking inappropriately treats airpor ts in the same manner as industrial lead sources and claim th at lead emissions at airports will have a lesser impact on ambient lead concentrations since the lead emissions from airpla nes taking off from or landing at airports are spread out over a larger area, unlike industrial sources where the emissions may be emitted from a few stacks. The EPA has limited quantitative information with w hich to evaluate the impact on either on-airport or off-air port ambient lead concentrations from airports. One study conducted near the Santa Monica airport measured a maximum 3-month ave rage lead concentration of 0.1 μg/m 3 near the runway blast fence ( Cavender, 2009b). Based on the 2002 lead 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 Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Fine, 2007).
Deleted: Pb20

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. 32 to 4.9 tpy) and does not support the case for different tr eatment of airports
. 5 The EPA is not aware of similar studies where lea d was monitored at or near the maximum impact area an d does not believe there are sufficient data to develop or jus tify a separate emission threshold for airports
. 6 As such, the EPA proposes to treat airports identically to other sou rces of lead , and require monitoring agencies to conduct lead monitoring [ or request a monitoring waiver as allowed under 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, paragraph 4.5(a)(ii)] at or near airports that emit 0.50 tpy of lead , as is required for other sources of lead. The EPA estimates airport-specific lead inventories using a method similar to that used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to estimate inventories of oth er criteria pollutants emitted by aircraft at airport facilitie s in its Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). T he method EPA uses to calculate airport-specific lead inventories is briefly

5 The EPA notes that “urban background lead” (typical ly 0.02-0.03 μ g/m 3 ) may have a higher impact on this estimate of the site-s pecific emission threshold than in the estimates made for industrial facilitie s since the urban background represents a higher percentage of the to tal lead concentration. Basing the calculation on just the impact from the airport would result in a higher site-specific emission threshold estimate. 6 EPA notes that additional information may become av ailable regarding the Santa Monica airport lead study, or other similar s tudies, prior to the issuance of a final rule. If additional informatio n does become available before this rule is finalized (e.g., a final study report on the Santa Monica airport), EPA will take such information into accou nt. Deleted: 50 Deleted: 7.5 Deleted: , Deleted:

. Deleted: on airport property

Deleted:

. Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb Deleted: ( Deleted: )

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb.21

described here and a more complete description is a vailable in other documents (USEPA 2008a). The EPA’s method fo r calculating airport-specific lead inventories requires as input the following data: the activity of piston-engine airc raft at a facility, fuel consumption rates by these aircraft during the various modes of the landing and takeoff cycle (LTO ), time in each mode (taxi/idle-out, takeoff, climb-out, appro ach, and taxi/idle-in), the concentration of lead in the fue l, and the retention of lead in the engine and oil. We use in formation from national databases to supply this information. The data inputs for which states or local authorities may be able to obtain airport-specific data are: 1) Airport-specific LTO activity for piston-powered ai rcraft, including the fraction of piston-engine activity co nducted by single- versus twin-engine aircraft. There are no national databases that provide airport-specific LT O activity data for piston-engine aircraft separately from turbojet and turboprop aircraft (turboprop and turb ojet powered aircraft use jet fuel, which does not conta in lead). Some airport facilities collect this inform ation and states may use these data to calculate airport- specific lead inventories. 2) The time spent in each mode of the LTO cycle. EPA uses the EDMS scenario property of International Civil Aviat ion22

Organization/USEPA Default - Times in Mode, with a 16- minute taxi-in/taxi-out time according to EPA’s Pro cedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mob ile Sources, 1992. We are requesting airport-specific information for these times in each mode of the LTO cycle. We also request information regarding the time spen t in run-up checks conducted by piston-engine aircraft p rior to take-off. This mode of operation is not currently included in EPA’s airport-specific lead inventories. 3) Other data inputs for the airport-specific lead inv entory calculation for which states or local authorities m ay provide airport-specific information include the concentration of lead in the aviation gasoline supp lied at an airport, and the fraction of lead in fuel that i s retained in the engine and oil, and actual fuel con sumption rates by the piston-engine aircraft operating at sp ecific airports. The EPA identified 55 airports that may exceed the proposed 0.50 tpy emission threshold. Under this proposed r ule, state and local monitoring agencies would be required to monitor these airports, request a waiver as allowed under 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D (by performing dispersion modeling to de monstrate that estimated maximum lead concentrations would be less than 50 percent of the lead NAAQS), or demonstrate that the actual23

emissions from a given airport are less than 0.50 t py (by using site-specific values for the factors identified abo ve in lieu of the national average values used by the EPA). The EPA is requesting airport-specific data inputs that states or other local authorities could provide to EPA, particularl y for airports that would be subject to lead monitoring i n the context of this proposed rule. The EPA solicits comments on the availability of ot her data that may be useful in considering an alternative emission threshold for airports . The Agency also seeks comment on whether EPA should consider other factors or criter ia that might be useful in determining if a different approach is appropriate for identifying those airports that have the potential to approach or contribute to violations of the lead NA AQS. For example, the EPA could require monitoring at airpor ts that the EPA determines have the potential to cause increase d ambient lead concentrations approaching or contributing to violations of the NAAQS based on criteria including the estimated lead emissions and other factors such as the number of r unways where piston-engine aircraft operate. However, we do not currently have information regarding the impact of airport-sp ecific attributes on ambient lead concentrations. The EPA solicits comments on alternative approaches including the fa ctors that could be considered in identifying airports that ma y require Deleted: this issue, on
Deleted: setting
Deleted: , and

Deleted: emission threshold24

monitoring. We also request data to support the re lationship between airport-specific factors or attributes and ambient lead concentrations
. V. Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements The EPA is proposing to replace the current non-so urceoriented monitoring approach with the requirement f or lead 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 lead NAAQS, the EPA required one lead monitor site in each CBSA with a population of 500,000 people or more - leading to 1 01 monitors. These monitors are to be located to measure neighbo rhood scale (as described in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, paragr aph 1.2(b)(3)) lead concentrations in urban areas impacted by resuspended dust from roadways, closed industrial sou rces which previously were significant sources of lead , hazardous waste sites, construction and demolition projects, or oth er fugitive dust sources of lead
. Deleted: In addition, the EPA is proposing to edit thewording of the sourceoriented 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.¶ I Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb Deleted: Core Based Statistical Areas ( Deleted: )

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb25

The EPA had proposed (73 FR 29184) and taken commen t on a smaller non-source-oriented lead monitoring network that included 1 monitor in each CBSA with a population o f 1,000,000 or more people, located to measure typical neighbor hood scale lead concentrations in urban areas – which would have r equired 50 monitors. The EPA noted that data from these no n-sourceoriented monitors would be helpful in better charac terizing population exposure to ambient air related lead and may assist in determining nonattainment boundaries. Concerns were raised during review of the draft fin al notice that non-inventoried lead sources in urban areas , such as closed industrial sources, hazardous waste sites, a nd construction and demolition projects could potentia lly result in ambient lead concentrations in excess of the lead NAAQS. To address these concerns, the EPA modified the siting criteria to require non-source-oriented monitors to be sited to evaluate these non-inventoried lead sources. The EPA also lowered the population threshold from requiring monitoring at C BSAs with a population of 1,000,000 people or more to requiring monitoring at CBSAs with a population of 500,000 people or mor e. B. Issues With Non-Source-Oriented Monitoring Requ irements Some sources of lead which are not in the current NEI that could result in ambient lead concentrations in excess of the lead NAAQS have been identified (USEPA, 2008b). Howeve r, as Deleted: s
Deleted: Pb Deleted: ,

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb26

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, lead concentrations drop off rapidly with distance away from a source, such that it is unlikely that non-source-oriented monitors would identify the maximum lead concentration near non-inventoried sources where the lead NAAQS could be exceeded. Furthermore, locations n ear non-inventoried sources outside of CBSAs with a pop ulation 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 lead concentrations, one of EPA’s original 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-oriented monitoring network requirements (paragraph 4.5(a) o f Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58) which require monitoring agencie s to conduct lead monitoring at sources “which are expected to or ha ve been Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb27

shown to contribute to a maximum lead concentration in ambient air in excess of the NAAQS” and the EPA Regional Ad ministrators’ authority to require monitoring “where the likeliho od of lead air quality violations is significant.” These non- inventoried lead sources may be identified by monitoring agencies, the EPA, or concerned citizens as part of the network plan r eview 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 lead NAAQS. The EPA believes it is appropriate to re-emphasize the objectives identified in the prior proposed rule for non-sourceoriented monitors, i.e., measuring typical neighbor hood-scale lead concentrations in urban areas so we can better und erstand the risk posed by lead 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
. 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 Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb28

considered in the design of the lead network. The NCore 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 provides data needed 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 lead monitoring is already required in at least one NCore site per EPA Region. As such, one option for implementing lead non-source-oriented monitoring is to require lead monitoring at all NCore sites rather than the popu lationbased approach currently used. This option provide s a similar result to that of basing the non-source-oriented mo nitoring requirements on population (as was established in t he November 2008 final rule) and has additional similarities wi th the provisions adopted in the final rule on the revised lead NAAQS including:

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

more.

• NCore sites will be neighborhood-scale sites. Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5"

Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5" Deleted: Pb

Deleted: to provide

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: , Deleted: Pb

Deleted: ,

Deleted: , and29

• 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 lead monitoring, reducing the cost and time necessary to implement the non-source-orie nted monitoring requirements. 7 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 lead monitoring at NCore sites rather than having separate non-source-oriented mon itoring 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 lead monitoring at all 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 for lead. The EPA also seeks comments on whether lead monitoring should be required at all NCore sites, o r only NCore sites in large urban areas (e.g., in CBSAs with a popula tion greater than 500,000 people)
.

7 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 lead -PM 10 sampling such that these sites would need to add an additional low-vol ume PM 10 sampler to perform lead -PM 10 sampling. In addition, if lead -PM 10 concentrations are found to be greater than 0.10 μg/m 3 , a lead -TSP sampler would be required at the NCore site according to paragraph 2.10.1.1 of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58, within 6 months. Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5"

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb. Deleted: if Pb Deleted: urban

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb30

The EPA is also proposing to make a minor edit to t he existing monitoring requirements. Paragraph 3(c) o f Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 requires lead monitoring at 10 NC ore sites, located in the most populated MSA/CSA in each of th e 10 EPA Regions. This requirement was added prior to the r ecent lead monitoring revisions and was intended to provide fo r measurement of long-term lead trends away from lead sources. S ince lead monitoring would be required at all NCore sites if this proposal is finalized, paragraph 3(c) of Appendix D to 40 CF R part 58 is redundant and, as such, the EPA proposes to delete this paragraph.
VI . Increase in Lead Monitors and Timeline for Deploy ing New Monitors These proposed revisions to the monitoring requirem ents will result in an increase in the number of lead monitors 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 lead emissions from airports (EPA, 2008a), the current monitoring requirements would require up to 212 lead monitors - 111 source-oriented monitors 8 (106 industrial and 5 airport) and 101 non-sourceoriented monitors. Based on the monitoring require ments

8 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. Deleted: V

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb31

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 lead monitors will likely be less than 352 since these numbers do not take into account the probability that monitoring agencies wi ll request and attain waivers from source-oriented monitoring requirements for some of the lead sources identified as emitting more than 0.50 tpy of lead
. This proposal does not change the current requirement for monitoring agencies to have lead monitors installed and operating near sources emitting 1.0 tpy of lead or more by January 1, 2010 (i.e., the deadline specified in th e November 2008 final rule). The EPA proposes that if we revi se the monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies would have 6 months from the effective date of the final rule to update their annual monitoring network plans. The update would incorpo rate plans for source-oriented monitors near lead sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy. The EPA is also pr oposing to allow 1 year from the date of the final rule for mo nitoring agencies to install and begin operation of source-o riented monitors near lead sources emitting 0.50 tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy. Deleted: Pb
Deleted: values

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: still requires
Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb32

The EPA notes that the timeline described above 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 solicits co mments on what factors should be considered when prioritizing which sites should be installed during the first year versus th e second. The EPA specifically solicits comments on an altern ative deployment schedule that would allow for monitors n ear airports to be deployed over 2 years, and on what factors sh ould be considered when prioritizing airports to receive mo nitors in the first year of deployment. Monitoring agencies must have installed and begun operation of required NCore sites and monitors (other than lead ) by January 1, 2011. Because the necessary siting and site installation will already be in place at NCore site s, the EPA does not believe any additional time beyond that of the existing NCore schedule is required for monitoring agencies to install Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" Deleted: this

Deleted: also
Deleted: , such as source category,

Deleted: Pb33

any necessary lead monitors and begin lead sampling at NCore sites. As such, the EPA is proposing to require mo nitoring agencies to commence lead sampling at NCore sites when NCore sites are to become operational , no later than January 1, 2011. The EPA recognizes that these proposed requirements will not be finalized until spring 2010 at the earliest which is just a few months before monitoring agencies are current ly required to submit their lead network plans for non-source-oriented monitors (July 1, 2010). Because this reconsiderat ion may affect where non-source-oriented monitors may be re quired, the EPA is advising monitoring agencies to not site or install nonsource-oriented monitors until after this reconside ration is complete and the final revisions are promulgated.
VI I . Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4 , 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action” 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 Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: be implemented

Deleted: likely

Deleted: Pb34

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 2378.01
. 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 (CAA) . All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements for which a claim of confide ntiality is 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 measure progress for the air pollution program. The propos ed amendments would revise the technical requirements for lead monitoring sites, require the siting and operation of addition al lead ambient air monitors, and require the reporting of the collected ambient lead monitoring data to EPA’s AQS. The annual average reporting burden for the collection under 40 CFR pa rt 58 (averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR) for 105 respondents is estimated to increase by a total of 19,551 labor Deleted: 0940.23

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: 14035

hours per year with an increase of $1,849,264 per y ear. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). State, local, and T ribal entities are eligible for state assistance grants p rovided by the federal government under the CAA which can be u sed 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. 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 after36

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 jurisdi ction that is a government of a city, county, town, school distri ct , or 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 Deleted:37

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 (UMRA) 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 ry 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.38

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 establishm ent 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 Deleted: Federal39

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 any NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional comme nt on this proposed action from Tribal officials.40

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 Act 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 be41

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, and 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 or42

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 I . 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/20081015Cav ender.pdf
Cavender, K. (2009 a ). Summary of Discussion of Lead Monitoring Near Airports at Spring 2009 NACAA Monitoring Subco mmittee Meeting. Memorandum to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPAHQ-OAR-2006-0735.
Cavender, K. (2009b). Review of Pb Monitoring Cond ucted Near General Aviation Airports. Memorandum to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA-HQ-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 Workshop - Chicago, IL, October 2 - 4, 2007. EPA-HQ-OAR-200 6-0735. Deleted: pb

Deleted: Pb43

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 on line 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_ lead _inventory_2 002.pdf
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. Deleted:

Deleted: pbPage 45 of 49

Revisions to Lead Ambient Air 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. Deleted: 37 Deleted: 4146

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 lead monitoring sites in accordance with the requirements of append ix D to this part for lead sources emitting 1.0 tpy or greater shall 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 lead monitoring sites for lead sources emitting 1.0 tpy or greater to be operation al by January 1, 2010. A plan for establishing source-oriented lead monitoring sites in accordance with the requirement s of appendix D to this part for lead sources emitting greater than 0.50 tpy Formatted

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb47

but less than 1.0 tpy shall be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator no later than [ insert date 6 months after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Regist er ] . The plan shall provide for the required source-oriented lead monitoring sites for lead sources emitting greater than 0.50 tpy but less than 1.0 tpy to be operational by [ insert date 12 months after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register ]
.

* * * * *

3. Appendix D to Part 58 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph 3.(b), b. By removing and reserving paragraph 3.(c), c. By revising 4.5.(a), and d. By revising paragraph 4.5.(b ). 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 , lead , wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, and ambient temperature. Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: by

Deleted: ) to read as follows:

Deleted: Pb48

(c) [Reserved.]
* * * * * 4.5 * * * (a) State and, where appropriate, local agencies are required to conduct ambient air lead monitoring near lead sources which are expected to or have been shown to contribute to a maximum lead concentration in ambient air in excess 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 lead concentration in ambient air resulting from each lead source which emits 0.50 or more tons per year based on eit her 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 of the maximum lead concentration due to one lead source is expected to also be impacted by lead emissions from a nearby source (or multiple sources). This monitor must be sited, taking into account logistics and the potential for population exposure, where the lead concentration from all sources combined is expected to be at its maximum. Deleted: Lead (Pb) Design Criteria. Deleted: state Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb
Deleted: Pb

Deleted:

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb49

(ii) The Regional Administrator may waive the req uirement in paragraph 4.5(a) for monitoring near lead sources if the state or, where appropriate, local agency can demon strate the lead source will not contribute to a maximum lead concentration in ambient air in excess of 50 percent of the NAAQS (based 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 lead monitoring at each NCore site required under paragraph 3 of this appen dix.
* * * * * Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb Deleted: Pb

Deleted: Pb