Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements, 69050-69059 [E9-31049]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 30, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69050-69059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31049]


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

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:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: 202-566-9744.
     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 https://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 (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number 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 Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: 919-541-2364; 
fax: 919-541-1903; e-mail: 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 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

[[Page 69051]]

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 https://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 (919) 541-2364 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

[[Page 69052]]

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 (https://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

[[Page 69053]]

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


[[Page 69054]]

    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

[[Page 69055]]

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

[[Page 69056]]

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 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/. 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 2.10.1.1 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

[[Page 69057]]

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

[[Page 69058]]

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: https://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: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic