[Federal Register: December 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69050-69059]
[DOCID:fr30de09-20]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 58

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735; FRL-9098-2]
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 revisions to the monitoring requirements in that final
rule pertaining to where state and local monitoring agencies
(``monitoring agencies'') would be required to conduct lead monitoring.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0735 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735, Environmental
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 comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries 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-HQ-OAR-
2006-0735. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about 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 statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed 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 Register date, and
page number).
     Follow directions--the agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions

or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
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 allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

B. Availability of Related Information

    A number of documents relevant to this rulemaking, including the
notice of final rulemaking (73 FR 66964), the notice of proposed
rulemaking (73 FR 29184), the advance 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) Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/lead/s_lead_index.html. These and
other related documents are also available 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 public hearing
concerning this proposed rule by January 11, 2010, we will hold a
public hearing on January 14, 2010. If January 14, 2010 falls on a
Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, the hearing will be held on the following
Monday. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony at the hearing,
or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be held, should contact Kevin
A. Cavender at<PHONE_NUMBER> at least 2 days in advance of the
hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the
EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Under CAA section 307(d)(1)(V),
the Administrator determines that the provisions of section 307(d) are
applicable to this proposal and all the procedural requirements of
section 307(d) will apply to it.

D. How is this document organized?

    The information presented in this document is organized 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 Monitoring
Requirements
VI. Increase in Lead Monitors and Timeline for Deploying New
Monitors
VII. 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 Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
VIII. References

II. Background

    The EPA issued a final rule on November 12, 2008, that revised the
NAAQS for lead and associated ambient air lead monitoring requirements
(73 FR 66964, codified at 40 CFR part 58). As part of the lead
monitoring requirements, monitoring agencies are required to monitor
ambient air near lead sources which are expected to or have been shown
to have a potential to contribute to a 3-month average lead
concentration in ambient air in excess of the level of the NAAQS. At a
minimum, monitoring agencies must monitor near lead sources that emit
1.0 ton per year (tpy) or more. However, this requirement can be waived
by the EPA Regional Administrator if the monitoring agency can
demonstrate that the source will not contribute to a 3-month average
lead concentration in ambient air in excess of 50 percent of the level
of the NAAQS (based on historical monitoring data, modeling, or other
means).
    Monitoring agencies are also currently required to conduct lead
monitoring in large urban areas (identified as Core Based Statistical
Areas, or CBSAs, as defined by the OMB) with a population of 500,000
people or more. The locations for these monitoring sites are intended
to measure neighborhood-scale lead concentrations in urban areas
impacted by resuspended dust from roadways, closed industrial sources
which previously were significant sources of lead, hazardous waste
sites, construction and demolition projects, or other fugitive dust
sources of lead.
    Following promulgation of the revised lead NAAQS and monitoring
requirements, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the
Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation, the Physicians for
Social Responsibility, and the Coalition to End Childhood Lead
Poisoning (``the Petitioners'') petitioned (NRDC, 2009) for a
reconsideration of the lead emission rate at which monitoring is
required (the ``emission threshold,'' currently 1.0 tpy). On July 22,
2009, the EPA granted the petition to reconsider aspects of the
monitoring requirements (Jackson, 2009). In response to the petition,
the EPA reviewed and reconsidered the monitoring requirements and is
proposing revisions to the requirements for both source-oriented and
non-source-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 required to conduct lead
monitoring near a lead source to 0.50 tpy from an emissions threshold
of 1.0 tpy. The EPA is also seeking comments on alternative emission
thresholds between 0.50 tpy to 1.0 tpy. The following paragraphs
discuss the issues considered, the proposed changes, and our rationale
for the proposed changes to the source-oriented monitoring
requirements.

A. Background on Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements

    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 manufacturing, and other source
categories that emit lead.
    The EPA also noted in the final NAAQS rulemaking that 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 promulgated 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 would be ``placing an unnecessary burden on
monitoring agencies to evaluate or monitor around sources that may not
have a significant potential to exceed the NAAQS.'' As such, the EPA
required monitoring 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, Appendix 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 authority to
require additional monitoring beyond the minimum monitoring
requirements where the likelihood of lead air quality violations is
significant or where the emissions density, topography, or population
locations are complex and varied. The EPA projected the source-oriented
portion of the network to be up to 135 monitors based on these
requirements and on information available at the time the final rule
was published (i.e., the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note that the 2005 NEI is now available and the EPA has used
the lead emission estimates in the 2005 NEI for estimating the
impact of these proposed revisions. Based on the 2005 NEI, 111
source-oriented monitoring sites would be required under the
existing monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Issues With Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements

    The Petitioners cited several reasons for EPA to reconsider the
lead monitoring emission threshold (NRDC, 2009). They noted that the
finalized emission threshold of 1.0 tpy was above the proposed range of
200 to 600 kilograms per year and, therefore, argued that the EPA
failed to provide for proper public comment on the 1.0 tpy threshold.
They also argued that the 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 not provide for an adequate margin of safety as required by the
Clean Air Act. The EPA granted the petition to reconsider the
monitoring emission threshold (Jackson, 2009), and this proposed rule
reflects our reconsideration of the emission threshold.

C. Reconsideration of Source-Oriented Monitoring Requirements

    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-specific 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 existing lead
monitoring data near lead sources. The EPA believes this approach
provides the best information on the potential 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 50 Appendix R. Under this approach, source-oriented lead monitors
within 1 mile of a lead source (identified from the 2002 NEI) were
identified. This group of sites was then narrowed down to sites near
facilities emitting 1 tpy or more of lead into the ambient air, and
then to sites which were only impacted by one lead emitting facility.
Also, in cases where more than one monitor was identified within 1 mile
of the same facility emitting 1 tpy or more of lead annually, the EPA
only used the monitor measuring the maximum lead 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 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-month average concentration to
the facility annual emissions (as identified in the 2002 NEI) to
provide an estimate of the impact from the facility in units of
micrograms per meter cubed ([mu]g/m\3\) per tpy. Dividing the level of
the lead NAAQS (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\) by this ratio provides an estimate of
the annual emission level for the facility which would result in
ambient lead concentrations just meeting the lead NAAQS, referred to
here as a ``site-specific emission threshold'' (see Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                    Table 1--Data Used To Estimate Facility Impacts Based on Monitoring Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Maximum  3-month
                                        average lead     NEI 2002 facility    Ratio  ([mu]g/     Site-specific
            AQS site Id                 concentration      emission rate        m\3\-tpy)           emission
                                        ([mu]g/m\3\)           (tpy)                            threshold  (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
011090003..........................                1.2                 4.5               0.27               0.56
171190010..........................                0.33                1.3               0.25               0.59
290990013..........................                1.8                58.8               0.03               4.90

340231003..........................                0.23                1.7               0.14               1.11
420110717..........................                0.24                4.8               0.05               3.00
471870100..........................                0.93                2.6               0.36               0.42
480850009..........................                0.75                3.2               0.23               0.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis shows that four of these seven lead sources support
an emission threshold less than the emission threshold of 1.0 tpy set
by the final rule on the revised lead NAAQS.
    As part of this reconsideration, the EPA evaluated the stability
and sensitivity of the above analysis. To evaluate the stability of the
site-specific emission threshold calculation, the EPA performed the
same analysis for these same seven facilities based on the emission
estimates from the 2002 and 2005 NEI (Table 2) and estimated design
values over the periods 2001-2003 and 2004-2006 (Table 3). Table 4
summarizes the site-specific emission thresholds calculated for these
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA notes that, for facilities where emissions have
dramatically decreased in recent years, re-entrained lead from
historical deposits may influence the emission threshold calculation
to a greater extent than for facilities where lead emissions have
remained constant.
    \4\ Monitoring data at this site did not meet the minimum
completeness requirements of 40 CFR part 50 Appendix R for this time
period. No design value or site-specific emission factor was
calculated for this time period.

                                         Table 2--NEI Emission Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            2002 NEI facility  2005 NEI facility
           AQS site Id              NEI facility Id       Facility name       emission rate      emission rate
                                                                                (tpy)              (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
011090003.......................  NEI18383...........  Sanders Lead Co....                4.5               4.44
171190010.......................  NEI55848...........  National Steel                     1.3               0.90
                                                        Corp--Granite City
                                                        Div.
290990013.......................  NEI34412...........  Doe Run Company,                  58.8              28.09
                                                        Herculaneum
                                                        Smelter.
340231003.......................  NEINJ16031.........  Johnson Controls                   1.7               1.34
                                                        Battery Group Inc.
420110717.......................  NEI117.............  East Penn Mfg......                4.8               1.88
471870100.......................  NEI715.............  Metalico-College                   2.6               2.55
                                                        Grove, Inc..
480850009.......................  NEI6493............  Gnb Metals Div.....                3.2               3.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Table 3--Estimated Design Values Based on Alternative Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2001-2003       2004-2006
               AQS site Id                 Design value    Design value
                                           ([mu]g/m\3\)    ([mu]g/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 Thresholds 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        \3\ 2.93
340231003...............................            1.11            0.63
420110717...............................            3.00            1.41
471870100...............................            0.42           (\4\)
480850009...............................            0.64            0.62
Minimum.................................            0.42            0.32
Median..................................            0.64            0.62
Maximum.................................            4.90            2.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows that, in most cases, the calculated emission
threshold remained fairly constant for a given facility over time, in
general, varying by a factor of 2 or less. Site-specific emission
thresholds varied from 0.32 tpy to 4.9 tpy with a median of 0.63 tpy.
    The EPA notes that these metrics may be exaggerated by outliers due
to the limited number of facilities being evaluated. As such, the EPA
looked at how these metrics changed when the extreme sites (i.e., the
highest and lowest emitting sources) were removed. Excluding site
290990013 resulted in a lowering of the upper range to 3 tpy and the
median to 0.62 tpy, but did not affect the minimum (0.32 tpy).
Excluding site 171190010 increases the minimum to 0.42 and the median
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 identify sources that would contribute
to exceedances of the NAAQS'' as compared to a lower emission
threshold. Upon further consideration 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
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 exceeded 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 finalized, monitoring agencies would be required to conduct
monitoring near lead sources that emit 0.50 tpy or greater, or request
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 monitoring 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 wording 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 purpose and intent of the existing
requirement.

IV. Monitoring of Airports

    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 lead is emitted as a result of the use of leaded
aviation fuel (Cavender, 2009a). These NACAA members believe that the
final lead NAAQS rulemaking inappropriately treats airports in the same
manner as industrial lead sources and claim that lead emissions at
airports will have a lesser impact on ambient lead concentrations since
the lead 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.
    The EPA has limited quantitative information with which to evaluate
the impact on either on-airport or off-airport ambient lead
concentrations from airports. One study conducted near the Santa Monica
airport measured a maximum 3-month average lead concentration of 0.1
[mu]g/m3 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 estimated site-specific emission
threshold of 0.6 tpy can be calculated using the same procedures used
to estimate a site-specific emission threshold as above [i.e., 0.15
[mu]g/m3/(0.1 [mu]g/m3/0.4 tpy) = 0.6 tpy]. This
site-specific emission threshold (0.6 tpy) falls within the lower end
of the range of specific emission thresholds calculated for industrial
sources above (0.32 to 4.9 tpy) and does not support the case for
different treatment of airports.\5\ The EPA is not aware of similar
studies where lead was monitored at or near the maximum impact area and
does not believe there are sufficient data to develop or justify a
separate emission threshold for airports.\6\ As such, the EPA proposes
to treat airports identically to other sources 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA notes that ``urban background lead'' (typically
0.02-0.03 [mu]g/m3) may have a higher impact on this
estimate of the site-specific emission threshold than in the
estimates made for industrial facilities since the urban background
represents a higher percentage of the total 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 available
regarding the Santa Monica airport lead study, or other similar
studies, prior to the issuance of a final rule. If additional
information 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 account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA estimates airport-specific lead inventories using a method
similar to that used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
estimate inventories of other criteria pollutants emitted by aircraft
at airport facilities in its Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System
(EDMS). The method EPA uses to calculate airport-specific lead
inventories is briefly described here and a more complete description
is available in other documents (USEPA 2008a). The EPA's method for
calculating airport-specific lead inventories requires as input the
following data: The activity of piston-engine aircraft 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, approach, and taxi/idle-in), the concentration of
lead in the fuel, and the retention of lead in the engine and oil. We
use information 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 aircraft,
including the fraction of piston-engine activity conducted by single
versus twin-engine aircraft. There are no national databases that
provide airport-specific LTO activity data for piston-engine aircraft
separately from turbojet and turboprop aircraft (turboprop and turbojet
powered aircraft use jet fuel, which does not contain lead). Some
airport facilities

collect this information 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 Aviation Organization/USEPA
Default--Times in Mode, with a 16-minute taxi-in/taxi-out time
according to EPA's Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation,
Volume IV: Mobile 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 spent in run-up checks conducted
by piston-engine aircraft prior 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 inventory
calculation for which states or local authorities may provide airport-
specific information include the concentration of lead in the aviation
gasoline supplied at an airport, and the fraction of lead in fuel that
is retained in the engine and oil, and actual fuel consumption rates by
the piston-engine aircraft operating at specific airports.
    The EPA identified 55 airports that may exceed the proposed 0.50
tpy emission threshold. Under this proposed rule, 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 demonstrate that estimated maximum
lead concentrations would be less than 50 percent of the lead NAAQS),
or demonstrate that the actual emissions from a given airport are less
than 0.50 tpy (by using site-specific values for the factors identified
above 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, particularly for airports that would
be subject to lead monitoring in the context of this proposed rule.
    The EPA solicits comments on the availability of other 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 criteria 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
NAAQS. For example, the EPA could require monitoring at airports that
the EPA determines have the potential to cause increased 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 runways where piston-engine aircraft
operate. However, we do not currently have information regarding the
impact of airport-specific attributes on ambient lead concentrations.
The EPA solicits comments on alternative approaches including the
factors that could be considered in identifying airports that may
require monitoring. We also request data to support the relationship
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-source-oriented
monitoring approach with the requirement for lead monitoring at the
national multi-pollutant monitoring network known as NCore. The
following paragraphs discuss the issues considered, the proposed
changes, and our rationale for the proposed changes to the non-source-
oriented monitoring 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 101 monitors. These monitors are to
be located to measure neighborhood scale (as described in 40 CFR part
58, Appendix D, paragraph 1.2(b)(3)) lead concentrations in urban areas
impacted by re-suspended dust from roadways, closed industrial sources
which previously were significant sources of lead, hazardous waste
sites, construction and demolition projects, or other fugitive dust
sources of lead.
    The EPA had proposed (73 FR 29184) and taken comment on a smaller
non-source-oriented lead monitoring network that included 1 monitor in
each CBSA with a population of 1,000,000 or more people, located to
measure typical neighborhood scale lead concentrations in urban areas--
which would have required 50 monitors. The EPA noted that data from
these non-source-oriented monitors would be helpful in better
characterizing population exposure to ambient air related lead and may
assist in determining nonattainment boundaries.
    Concerns were raised during review of the draft final notice that
non-inventoried lead sources in urban areas, such as closed industrial
sources, hazardous waste sites, and construction and demolition
projects could potentially 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 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 Requirements

    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). However, as currently written, it is
not clear that the non-source-oriented monitoring requirements would
result in monitors near such non-inventoried sources. The non-source-
oriented monitors 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 near
non-inventoried sources outside of CBSAs with a population of 500,000
people or more would not be addressed by the current non-source-
oriented requirements and, as such, these sources would not necessarily
be monitored. The final siting 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 Monitoring Requirements

    After further consideration, the EPA believes the most appropriate
approach to achieve the placement of monitors near non-inventoried
sources that have the potential to cause an exceedance of the NAAQS is
through the existing source-oriented monitoring network requirements
(paragraph 4.5(a) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58) which require
monitoring agencies to conduct lead monitoring at sources ``which are
expected to or have been shown to contribute to a maximum lead
concentration in ambient air in excess of the NAAQS'' and the EPA
Regional Administrators' authority to require monitoring ``where the
likelihood 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 review and

approval requirements. Furthermore, monitors sited under the source-
oriented monitoring requirements are required 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-source-oriented monitors,
i.e., measuring typical neighborhood-scale lead concentrations in urban
areas so we can better understand the risk posed by lead to the general
population, and to provide information that could assist with the
determination of nonattainment boundaries. In addition, the EPA
believes non-source-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 section 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 lead
network. The NCore network is intended to be a long-term, multi-
pollutant, monitoring network that not only provides information useful
to NAAQS attainment decisions, but also provides data needed to broaden
the understanding of air quality conditions and pollutant interactions,
evaluate air quality models, develop emission control strategies, and
support long-term health studies. 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 population-
based approach currently used. This option provides a similar result to
that of basing the non-source-oriented monitoring requirements 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 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 these being in urban areas with a population of
500,000 people or more.
     NCore sites will be neighborhood-scale sites.
     NCore sites are long-term trends sites suitable for long-
term population exposure studies.
    In addition, many NCore sites will have the low-volume
PM10 sampler necessary to conduct lead monitoring, reducing
the cost and time necessary to implement the non-source-oriented
monitoring requirements.\7\ Additional information on the objectives
and specific sites for NCore can be obtained 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 monitoring requirements, the EPA is proposing to
revise the existing non-source-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, or only NCore sites in large urban areas
(e.g., in CBSAs with a population greater than 500,000 people).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA expects that low-volume PM10 samplers will be
used at many NCore sites in order to meet the existing requirement
for PM10-2.5 measurements. However, EPA notes that some
NCore sites may use a dichotomous sampler or a continuous
PM10-2.5 sampler that would not be compatible with lead-
PM10 sampling such that these sites would need to add an
additional low-volume PM10 sampler to perform lead-
PM10 sampling. In addition, if lead-PM10
concentrations are found to be greater than 0.10 [mu]g/m\3\, a lead-
TSP sampler would be required at the NCore site according to
paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58, within 6 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also proposing to make a minor edit to the existing
monitoring requirements. Paragraph 3(c) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58
requires lead monitoring at 10 NCore sites, located in the most
populated MSA/CSA in each of the 10 EPA Regions. This requirement was
added prior to the recent lead monitoring revisions and was intended to
provide for measurement of long-term lead trends away from lead
sources. Since lead monitoring would be required at all NCore sites if
this proposal is finalized, paragraph 3(c) of Appendix D to 40 CFR part
58 is redundant and, as such, the EPA proposes to delete this
paragraph.

VI. Increase in Lead Monitors and Timeline for Deploying New Monitors

    These proposed revisions to the monitoring requirements will result
in an increase in the number of lead monitors that monitoring agencies
must deploy and operate relative 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-
source-oriented monitors. Based on the monitoring requirements proposed
here, the number of total required monitors increases to 352 monitors
with 272 source-oriented monitors (217 industrial and 55 airport) and
80 non-source-oriented 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 will
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Note that the current estimate of the required source-
oriented sites is lower than the estimate identified in the final
rule (135 sites) because the current estimate is based on the 2005
NEI rather than the 2002 NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the November 2008 final rule). The EPA proposes
that if we revise 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 incorporate
plans for source-oriented monitors near lead 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 operation of source-oriented monitors near lead sources
emitting 0.50 tpy or more, but less than 1.0 tpy.
    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 comments on the appropriateness of allowing deployment in
phases requiring half of the sites for sources between 0.50 and 1.0 tpy
to be installed during the first year following promulgation of the
final monitoring requirements, and for the remaining half to be
installed during the second year following promulgation of the final
monitoring requirements. The

EPA solicits comments on what factors should be considered when
prioritizing which sites should be installed during the first year
versus the second. The EPA specifically solicits comments on an
alternative deployment schedule that would allow for monitors near
airports to be deployed over 2 years, and on what factors should be
considered when prioritizing airports to receive monitors 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 sites, the EPA does not believe any additional time
beyond that of the existing NCore schedule is required for monitoring
agencies to install any necessary lead monitors and begin lead sampling
at NCore sites. As such, the EPA is proposing to require monitoring
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 currently required to submit their lead
network plans for non-source-oriented monitors (July 1, 2010). Because
this reconsideration may affect where non-source-oriented monitors may
be required, the EPA is advising monitoring agencies to not site or
install non-source-oriented monitors until after this reconsideration
is complete and the final revisions are promulgated.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it was deemed to
``raise novel legal or policy issues.'' Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed 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 has been assigned EPA ICR number 2378.01.
    The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR
parts 58 are specifically authorized by sections 100, 301(a), and 319
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for which
a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency
policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The information collected and reported under 40 CFR part 58 is
needed to determine compliance with the NAAQS, to characterize air
quality and associated health and ecosystem impacts, to develop
emissions control strategies, and to measure progress for the air
pollution program. The proposed amendments would revise the technical
requirements for lead monitoring sites, require the siting and
operation of additional 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
part 58 (averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR) for 105
respondents is estimated to increase by a total of 19,551 labor hours
per year with an increase of $1,849,264 per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b). State, local, and tribal entities are eligible for
state assistance grants provided by the federal government 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 information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0735. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after December 30, 2009, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by January 29, 2010. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.
Rather, this rule establishes monitoring requirements for state and
local (where applicable) monitoring agencies. The EPA continues to be
interested in the 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 private sector in any 1 year. The
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 58 are estimated to increase the
ambient air monitoring costs 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 of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments
that may be affected

by the proposed amendments are already meeting similar requirements
under the existing rules, and the costs of changing the network design
requirements would be borne, in part, by the federal government through
state assistance grants.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable 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 federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule does not alter the
relationship between the federal government and the states regarding
the establishment and implementation of air quality improvement
programs as codified in the CAA. Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA is
mandated to establish NAAQS; however, CAA section 116 preserves the
rights of states to establish more stringent requirements if deemed
necessary by a state. Furthermore, this rule does not impact CAA
section 107 which establishes that the states have primary
responsibility for implementation of the NAAQS. Finally, as noted in
section D (above) on UMRA, this rule does not impose significant costs
on state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    However, EPA recognizes that states will have a substantial
interest in this rule and any corresponding revisions to associated air
quality surveillance requirements, 40 CFR part 58. Therefore, in the
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It does not have
a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, since Tribes
are not obligated to adopt or implement any NAAQS. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed action from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule would result in an
insignificant increase in power consumption associated with the
additional power required to run 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 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

VIII. References

Cavender, K. (2008). Development of Final Source-oriented Monitoring
Emission Threshold. Memorandum to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0735. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/
standards/lead/data/20081015Cavender.pdf.
Cavender, K. (2009a). Summary of Discussion of Lead Monitoring Near
Airports at Spring 2009 NACAA Monitoring Subcommittee Meeting.
Memorandum to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735.
Cavender, K. (2009b). Review of Pb Monitoring Conducted Near General
Aviation Airports. Memorandum to the Lead NAAQS Review Docket. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0735.
Fine, Philip (2007). Community-Scale Air Toxics Monitoring--Sun
Valley Neighborhood and General Aviation Airports. Presented at the
U.S. EPA Air Toxics Data Analysis Workshop--Chicago, IL, October 2-
4, 2007. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. Available online at: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/2007-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.pdf.
NRDC, et al. (2009). Petition to Reconsider. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/
0122009petitionReconsideration.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Air Quality Criteria
for Lead

(Second External Review Draft). Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/144aB-
bB. Available online 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 United States. EPA420-R-
08-020. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/tsd_
avgas_lead_inventory_2002.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b). Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 23, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
58 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 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:

Sec.  58.10  Annual monitoring network plan and periodic network
assessment.

    (a) * * *
    (4) A plan for establishing source-oriented lead monitoring sites
in accordance with the requirements of appendix D to this part for lead
sources emitting 1.0 tpy or greater shall be submitted to the EPA
Regional Administrator no later than July 1, 2009, as part of the
annual network plan required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The
plan shall provide for the required source-oriented lead monitoring
sites for lead sources emitting 1.0 tpy or greater to be operational by
January 1, 2010. A plan for establishing source-oriented lead
monitoring sites in accordance with the requirements of appendix D to
this part for lead sources emitting greater than 0.50 tpy but less than
1.0 tpy shall be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator no later
than June 30, 2010. 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 December 30, 2010.
* * * * *
    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 Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring

* * * * *
    3. * * *
    (b) The NCore sites must measure, at a minimum, PM2.5
particle mass using continuous and integrated/filter-based samplers,
speciated PM2.5, PM10-2.5 particle mass,
speciated PM10-2.5, O3, SO2, CO,
NO/NOy, lead, wind speed, wind direction, relative
humidity, and ambient temperature.
    (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 potential for population exposure. At
a minimum, there must be one source-oriented 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
either the most recent National Emission Inventory (http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html) or other scientifically
justifiable methods and data (such as improved emissions factors or
site-specific data) taking into account logistics and the potential
for population exposure.
    (i) One monitor may be used to meet the requirement in paragraph
4.5(a) for all sources involved when the location of the maximum
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.
    (ii) The Regional Administrator may waive the requirement in
paragraph 4.5(a) for monitoring near lead sources if the state or,
where appropriate, local agency can demonstrate 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 means). The waiver must be renewed once
every 5 years as part of the network assessment required under Sec.
58.10(d).
    (b) State and, where appropriate, local agencies are required to
conduct non-source-oriented lead monitoring at each NCore site
required under paragraph 3 of this appendix.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-31049 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 54280-54282]
[DOCID:fr14se06-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0740, EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0741, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0742;
FRL-8219-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collections;
Comment Requests; Information Requirements for Importation of
Nonconforming Vehicles; EPA ICR No. 0010.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0095;
Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations and Voluntary
Aftermarket Part Certification Program, EPA ICR No. 116.08, OMB Control
No. 2060-0060; and Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees,
EPA ICR 2080.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0545

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew three existing approved Information
Collection Requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). These ICRs are scheduled to expire on March 31, 2007. Before
submitting the ICRs to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collections as
described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket ID numbers
provided for each item in the text, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Center, (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries 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 identified by the Docket ID
numbers provided for each item in the text. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 734-
214-4869; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for each of the ICRs identified
in this document (see the Docket ID numbers for each ICR that are
provided in the text) which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of

information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number

assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your
response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register
citation.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for These ICRs?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

What Information Collection Activities or ICRs Does This Apply to?

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0740

    Affected entities: Importers (including Independent Commercial
Importers) of light duty vehicles or engines, light duty trucks or
engines, and highway motorcycles or engines.
    Title: Information Collection Request Renewal for Importation of
Nonconforming Vehicles.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0010.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0095.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on March 31,
2007. 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 title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Importers into the U.S. of light duty vehicles, light
duty trucks, and on road motorcycles, or the corresponding engines, are
required to report and keep records regarding the imports. The
collection of this information is mandatory to insure compliance with
Federal emissions requirements. Joint EPA and U.S. Customs Service
regulations at 40 CFR 85.1501 et seq., 19 CFR 1273, and 19 CFR 1774,
promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Act sections 203 and 208,
give authority for the collection of this information. The information
is used by program personnel to ensure that all Federal emissions
requirements are met, and by State regulatory agencies, businesses, and
individuals to verify whether vehicles are in compliance. Any
information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to policies set forth
in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--Confidentiality of Business
Information (see 40 CFR part 2), and the public is not permitted access
to information containing personal or organizational identifiers.

Burden Statement

    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 12,000.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 10,216 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $538,335. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $431,765 and an estimated cost of $106,570 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0741

    Affected entities: Manufacturers or builders of automotive
aftermarket parts who seek voluntary EPA certification of an
aftermarket part or parts.
    Title: Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations and
Voluntary Aftermarket Part Certification Program.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0116.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0060.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31,
2007. 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 title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Under Section 206(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7521), on-highway engine and vehicle manufacturers may not legally
introduce their products into U.S. commerce unless EPA has certified
that their production complies with applicable emission standards. Per
section 207(a), original vehicle manufacturers must warrant that
vehicles are free from defects in materials and workmanship that would
cause the vehicle not to comply with emission regulations during its
useful life. Section 207(a) directs EPA to provide certification to
those manufacturers or builders of automotive aftermarket parts that
demonstrate that the installation and use of their products will not
cause failure of the engine or vehicle to comply with emission
standards. An aftermarket part is any part offered for sale for
installation in or on a motor vehicle after such vehicle has left the
vehicle manufacturer's production line (40 CFR 85.2113(b)).
Participation in the aftermarket certification program is voluntary.
Aftermarket part manufacturers or builders (manufacturers) electing to
participate conduct emission and durability testing as described in 40
CFR part 85, subpart V, and submit data about their products and
testing procedures.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 547.
    Estimated total annual costs: $19,519. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $18,209 and an estimated cost of $1,519 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0742

    Affected entities: Manufacturers or importers of passenger cars,
motorcycles, light trucks, heavy duty truck engines, and non-road
vehicles or engines required to receive a certificate of conformity
from EPA prior to selling or introducing these products into commerce
in the U.S.
    Title: Information Collection Request Renewal for Motor Vehicle and
Engine Compliance Program Fees.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2080.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0545.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on March 31,
2007. 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 title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA has regulations
establishing emission standards and other requirements for various
classes of vehicles and engines. These regulations require that
compliance be demonstrated prior to EPA granting a ``Certificate of
Conformity''. EPA charges fees for administering this certification
program; in 2004 the fees program was expanded to include non-road
categories of vehicles and engines, such as several categories of
marine engines, locomotives, non-road recreational vehicles, and many
non-road compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines. Manufacturers
and importers of covered vehicles and engines are required to pay the
applicable certification fees prior to their certification applications
being reviewed. This ICR estimates the paperwork burden of complying
with this fees requirement.

Burden Statement

    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 290.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
7.35.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 2,132 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $85,541. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $76,840 and an estimated cost of $8,701 for maintenance
and operational costs.

    Dated: September 6, 2006.
Janet Cohen,
Acting Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-15253 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P