Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735-5480
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-05-21T04:00Z

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 04/30/2008 02:35PM

Subject: DOT comments

EPA deleted a footnote related to transportation conformity.  We believe
that the clarification related to transportation conformity should be
re-inserted into the document. (originally page 343, footnote 125). 

DOT’s Comments on the Preamble to EPA’s Proposed Rule for Lead NAAQS

[Additional comments on the April 29 version, in red] 

Page 15, first paragraph under C -- “In addition, Federal programs
provide for nationwide reductions in emissions of these and other air
pollutants through the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program under Title
II of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7521–7574), which involves controls for
automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, nonroad engine, and aircraft
emissions; …”   Do these control programs contribute to the
reduction of lead specifically?  EPA may want to specify.   [P. 15 -
Comment not addressed] 

Page 29 , top of the page --“…the top five of which include: mobile
sources13; industrial, commercial, institutional and process boilers;
utility boilers; iron and steel foundries; and primary Pb smelting
(Staff Paper Section 2.2).”  This sentence implies that mobile sources
are the most prevalent source of lead emissions.  According to footnote
13, all the mobile source emissions were coming from “leaded aviation
gas”.  Is this a correct interpretation?  Can EPA provide more
information? [P. 18 - Comment not addressed] 

Page 74, first paragraph the second sentence is speculative.   [P. 84 -
Comment not addressed.  This sentence “Although estimates of the
number of individuals, including children, living within close proximity
to roadways specifically recognized for this potential have not been
developed, these numbers may be substantial” should be deleted.] 

Pg 292,  second paragraph --“This monitoring requirement would apply
not only to existing industrial sources of lead, but also to fugitive
sources of lead… and airports where leaded aviation gas is used.” 
If monitors are too heavily focused on airports, the National Emissions
Inventory may misrepresent the contribution of leaded aviation gas to
the total inventory of lead emissions.   [P. 301 - Comment not
addressed.] 

Page 294, second paragraph --“Data from these monitors will also be
useful in determining impacts on Pb concentrations from mobile sources
(e.g., re-entrained roadway dust), construction and demolition projects;
and in determining the spatial variation in Pb concentrations between
areas that are source impacted and non-source impacted. Such data on
spatial variations within an urban area could assist with the
determination of non-attainment boundaries.”  What will be the policy
implications, if any, on the transportation sector if such monitoring
data are used in the non-attainment determination?  For example, will
transportation conformity be required if re-entrained road dust is
determined to be a significant contributor to lead concentration?  The
transportation conformity rule does not currently address lead
non-attainment areas.  Also, will the monitoring data have any bearing
on PM10 nonattainment designation?     [P. 303 – partially addressed,
but the comments on PM10 nonattainment designations was not addressed.] 

Page 295, second paragraph –“Lead concentrations near roadways are
not well understood at this time.”  On page 98, EPA states that
“This pathway is included in the “past air” category (and could
include contamination from historic Pb emissions from automobiles and Pb
paint.).”  We are concerned that re-entrained dust from highways is
considered policy relevant as “past dust”, despite the admission
that such lead concentrations are not “well understood.”  We support
EPA’s request for “comments on the need for monitoring near roadways
and the appropriateness of allowing near roadway monitoring to be used
to satisfy the requirement for non-source oriented monitoring.” [No
further comment.] 

Page 312, final paragraph -- “Since lead was phased out of motor
vehicle gasoline, mobile sources are no longer a significant source of
violations of the current Pb NAAQS.”  It is not clear whether EPA is
referring to 2 different categories of fugitive dusts – one from
mobile source, and the other area sources.  Further, on page 330, EPA
states “The SIPs for lead nonattainment areas should provide for the
implementation of control measures for point and area stationary sources
and mobile sources of lead emissions…”.  These sound contradictory. 
 [Comment on page 330 (new page 338) was not addressed.] 

Page 339, first paragraph --“States should estimate mobile source
emissions by using the latest emissions models and planning assumptions
available at the time the SIP is developed. Information and guidance on
the latest emissions models is available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models  and
at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm .”  Neither the current
emissions model (MOBILE6.2) nor the model being developed (MOVES)
include lead emissions estimates or fugitive dust calculations.  EPA
needs to clarify why these models should be used.   [The comment was
addressed.  EPA deleted this paragraph.] 

Page 343, footnote 125 -- EPA should also clarify that re-entrained road
dust as a contribution to lead concentration will not be subject to
transportation conformity. [EPA deleted this footnote.  The footnote on
transportation conformity should be included to provide clarification. 
This comment should be addressed when EPA re-inserts this footnote.] 

New comments: 

Page 336 – first full paragraph “ The technical guidance that
discusses in detail the suggested initial measures for RACM and RACT for
lead are contained in a document entitled “Fugitive Dust Background
Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control
Measures” (EPA-450/2-92-004, September 1992). ”  This sentence is
misleading.  The technical guidance cited here deals with fugitive dust
measures only, but not RACM or RACT in general as implied.  EPA needs to
clarify. 

Pages 337-338, new paragraph on RACT, EPA needs to clearly state that
these RACT requirements apply to stationary sources only.