Lead Dust Hazard Standards and Definition of Lead-Based Paint; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Notice of Receipt and Request for Comment, 51274-51276 [E9-23929]

Download as PDF 51274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices Dated: September 30, 2009. Lori Stewart, Acting Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. [FR Doc. E9–24056 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0665; FRL–8793–3] Lead Dust Hazard Standards and Definition of Lead-Based Paint; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Notice of Receipt and Request for Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. This notice announces that EPA has received a petition from the National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, et al., (petitioners) on August 10, 2009, and requests comments on issues raised by the petition. The petition requests, under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or, in the alternative, under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), EPA to lower the regulatory lead dust standards and modify the regulatory definition of lead-based paint. EPA must either grant or deny a TSCA section 21 petition within 90 days of filing. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0655, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001. • Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0655. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 2009–0655. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:15 Oct 05, 2009 Jkt 220001 the docket without change and may be made available on-line at https:// 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 regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. For technical information contact: Christina Wadlington, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566–1859; e-mail address: wadlington.christina@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to you if you manufacture, process, distribute, or use lead-based paint. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 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 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: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices ii. 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. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. TSCA Section 21 A. What Is a TSCA Section 21 Petition? Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny a TSCA section 21 petition within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register. A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days of either a denial, or if EPA fails to grant or deny a TSCA section 21 petition, the expiration of the 90–day period. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES B. What Criteria Apply to a Decision on a TSCA Section 21 Petition? The scope of a TSCA section 21 petition is limited to the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary’’ to issue the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:15 Oct 05, 2009 Jkt 220001 to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA will refer to the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been requested to evaluate this petition. III. Summary of TSCA Section 21 Petition Received A. What Action was Requested? On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition from the National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, et al., petitioning EPA to amend regulations promulgated under TSCA sections 401 and 403. Specifically, the petitioners are requesting that EPA: ‘‘1. Lower dust lead hazard standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b), 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), and 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area (μg/ft2) to 10 μg/ft2 or less for floors and from 250 μg/ft2 to 100 μg/ft2 or less for window sills. 2. Modify the definition of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 for previously applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied facilities, public building and commercial buildings to reduce the lead levels from 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million (ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard.’’ (Ref. 1) Petition at 2. B. What Support Do the Petitioners Offer? The petitioners provide results of analysis derived from studies that have become available since the current dust lead standards were promulgated in 2001. Studies referenced by petitioners, include: Dixon et al. (2009) (Ref. 2), National Center for Healthy Housing (rev. 2006) (Ref. 3), Wilson (2008) (Ref. 4), and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center’s ‘‘HOME Study.’’ Citing their analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999–2004 (Refs. 2 and 4), the petitioners conclude that: 1. ‘‘4.6% of children with an average age of 33 months living in pre-1978 homes would have a blood lead level of 10 μg/[deciliter]dL or greater when their floor dust lead loading was 12 μg/ft2.’’ 2. ‘‘At a floor dust lead loading of 12 μg/ft2, there is 95% confidence that no more than 7.9% of children would have a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or greater.’’ 3. ‘‘5.1% of children would have a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or greater when their window sill dust lead PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51275 loading was 100 μg/ft2.’’ Based on this information the petitioners conclude that ‘‘[u]sing EPA’s criteria of protecting 95% of children from an elevated blood lead level (currently defined as 10 μg/ dL or greater), dust standards of 10 μg/ ft2 for floors and 100 μg/ft2 for window sills should be adopted.’’ Petition at 3. From their own ‘‘Study of HUD’s Risk Assessment Methodology in Three U.S. Communities’’ (Ref .3), the petitioners assert ‘‘that children living in homes with floor dust lead levels under 20 μg/ ft2 had proportionally fewer elevated blood lead levels than children living in homes where the floor dust lead loading exceeded 20 μg/ft2.’’ The petitioners further assert, based on on-going analysis of the ‘‘HOME Study,’’ that ‘‘lower dust standards are achievable.’’ Petition at 4. The petitioners also contend that ‘‘the economic consequences of a rule based on the standards recommended in this petition will be less than EPA originally estimated when it adopted the current standards.’’ They provide that in the January 5, 2001 final rule (Ref. 5), EPA estimated that 22 million homes would have lead dust hazards based on a standard of 10 μg/ft2, and assert that the their ‘‘review of the Six-Year Follow-Up Study and the HOME Study demonstrated that current lead hazard control practices are adequate to reduce dust lead below the levels recommended in the petition.’’ The petitioners also assert that the ‘‘NHANES data suggest that less than 15% of pre-1978 homes–9.8 million homes–would be classified as having a dust lead hazard.’’ Petition at 5. When reviewing the regulatory definition of lead-based paint at 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223, the petitioners note that EPA simply adopted that statutory standard: Lead-based paint means paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or more than 0.5% by weight. Petitioners further note that HUD used the same definition in its Lead-Safe Housing Rule. To support their request that EPA lower the lead level in the definition of lead-based paint, petitioners explain that ‘‘under the current standards, paint that contains less than 5,000 ppm of lead would not be considered leadbased paint. As a result, when a lead inspector or lead risk assessor documents levels of 4,500 ppm of lead in the paint, the buyer or tenant would be told that lead-based paint is not present. The buyer or tenant would be unaware of the potential dangers of disturbing the paint.’’ Petition at 6. The petitioners estimate that ‘‘the economic consequences of this change E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1 51276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices in the definition of lead-based paint would primarily impact those buildings that already have been tested for the presence of lead-based paint by a certified lead risk assessor or lead inspector and found to have levels of lead in the paint between 600 ppm and 5,000 ppm (and the equivalent in mg/ cm2).’’ Petition at 7. IV. EPA Seeks Public Comment Under TSCA section 21, EPA must either grant or deny a petition within 90 days. EPA is providing this opportunity for the public to comment on, or provide any additional information relevant to, the issues identified in the petition. In order for the Agency to consider such comments within the 90– day petition review period, EPA must receive the comments on or before October 21, 2009 (see ADDRESSES). In assessing the usability of any data or information that may be submitted, EPA plans to follow the guidelines in EPA’s ‘‘A Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and Technical Information’’ (EPA 100B–03/001), referred to as the ‘‘Assessment Factors Document.’’ The ‘‘Assessment Factors Document’’ was published in the Federal Register issue of July 1, 2003 (Ref. 6). jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES V. References 16:15 Oct 05, 2009 List of Subjects Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Lead dust hazard standards. Dated: September 29, 2009. James Jones, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E9–23929 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Jkt 220001 environmental monitoring issues are encouraged and should be sent to Ms. Lara P. Autry, DFO, U.S. EPA (E243– 05), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, faxed to (919) 541–4261, or e-mailed to autry.lara@epa.gov. Members of the public are invited to listen to the teleconference calls, and time permitting, will be allowed to comment on issues discussed during this and previous ELAB meetings. Those persons interested in attending should call Lara P. Autry at (919) 541–5544 to obtain teleconference information. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Lara P. Autry at the number above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Lara P. Autry, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: September 28, 2009. Kevin Teichman, EPA Acting Science Advisor. [FR Doc. E9–24060 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P [FRL–8966–1] Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) Meeting Dates and Agenda Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: 1. National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes and Sierra Club. Letter from Rebecca Morley, National Center for Healthy Housing; Patrick MacRoy, Alliance for Healthy Homes; and Tom Neltner, Sierra Club to Administrator Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding the Paint and Dust Lead Standards. August 10, 2009. 2. Dixon, S.L.; Gaitens, J.M.; Jacobs, D.E., et al. (2009) Exposure of U.S. children to residential dust lead, 1999– 2004: II: The contribution of leadcontaminated dust to children’s blood lead levels. Environmental Health Perspectives. 117(3): 468–474. 3. National Center for Healthy Housing (rev. 2006) Study of HUDs Risk Assessment Methodology in Three U.S. Communities: Final Report, Columbia, MD (accessed 5–13–2009: https:// www.nchh.org/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HZUenslvU/ 0=&tabid=217). 4. Wilson, Jonathan. (2008) Should the EPA Lead Dust Standards be Lowered? (accessed 5–8–2009: https:// www.healthyhomestraining.org/ Research/Translational_Research_1117_PbDust_Standard_r2.1.pdf). VerDate Nov<24>2008 5. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL–6763–5). Available on-line at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ index.html. 6. EPA. A Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and Technical Information; Notice. Federal Register (68 FR 39086, July 1, 2003) (FRL–7520– 2). Available on-line at https:// www.epa.gov/osa/spc/assess.htm. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB), as previously announced, will have teleconference meetings on October 21, 2009 at 1 p.m. ET; November 18, 2009 at 1 p.m. ET; December 16, 2009 at 1 p.m. ET; February 17, 2010 at 1 p.m. ET; and March 17, 2010 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the ideas and views presented at the previous ELAB meetings, as well as new business. Items to be discussed by ELAB over these coming meetings include: (1) Expanding the number of laboratories seeking National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) accreditation; (2) proficiency testing; (3) ELAB support to the Agency’s Forum on Environmental Measurements (FEM); (4) implementing the performance approach; and (5) follow-up on some of ELAB’s past recommendations and issues. In addition to these teleconferences, ELAB will be hosting their next face-to-face meeting on January 25, 2010 at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago, IL at 1:30 p.m. (CT). Written comments on laboratory accreditation issues and/or SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 19, 2009. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291: 1. Earl E. Geiger, Bloomington, Minnesota, acting in concert with the Geiger Family Group; to acquire voting shares of Heritage Bancshares Group, Inc., Willmar, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51274-51276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23929]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0665; FRL-8793-3]


Lead Dust Hazard Standards and Definition of Lead-Based Paint; 
TSCA Section 21 Petition; Notice of Receipt and Request for Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA has received a petition from 
the National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes, 
Sierra Club, et al., (petitioners) on August 10, 2009, and requests 
comments on issues raised by the petition. The petition requests, under 
section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or, in the 
alternative, under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), EPA to lower the regulatory lead 
dust standards and modify the regulatory definition of lead-based 
paint. EPA must either grant or deny a TSCA section 21 petition within 
90 days of filing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0655, by one of the following methods:
      Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
      Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA 
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0655. The DCO is open from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0655. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at 
https://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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 
available at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in 
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA 
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room 
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is 
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic 
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor 
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must 
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby 
Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division 
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
    For technical information contact: Christina Wadlington, National 
Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1859; e-mail 
address: wadlington.christina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

     This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, 
however, be of interest to you if you manufacture, process, distribute, 
or use lead-based paint. Since other entities may also be interested, 
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that 
may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
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 
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:
     i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

[[Page 51275]]

     ii. 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.
     iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
     v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
     vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use 
of profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. TSCA Section 21

A. What Is a TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA 
to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or 
repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA 
section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the 
facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action 
requested. EPA is required to grant or deny a TSCA section 21 petition 
within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency 
must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the 
petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the 
Federal Register. A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. 
district court to compel initiation of the requested rulemaking 
proceeding within 60 days of either a denial, or if EPA fails to grant 
or deny a TSCA section 21 petition, the expiration of the 90-day 
period.

B. What Criteria Apply to a Decision on a TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    The scope of a TSCA section 21 petition is limited to the issuance, 
amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an 
order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA 
requires that the petition ``set forth the facts which it is claimed 
establish that it is necessary'' to issue the rule or order requested. 
15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the 
statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition, 
TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide 
whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit 
filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 
U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA will refer to the standards in 
TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been 
requested to evaluate this petition.

III. Summary of TSCA Section 21 Petition Received

A. What Action was Requested?

    On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition from the National 
Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, et 
al., petitioning EPA to amend regulations promulgated under TSCA 
sections 401 and 403. Specifically, the petitioners are requesting that 
EPA:

    ``1. Lower dust lead hazard standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b), 40 
CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), and 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40 
micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area ([mu]g/ft\2\) to 
10 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for floors and from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ or less for window sills. 2. Modify the definition of 
lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 for previously 
applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied 
facilities, public building and commercial buildings to reduce the 
lead levels from 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million 
(ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a corresponding 
reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard.''
(Ref. 1) Petition at 2.

B. What Support Do the Petitioners Offer?

    The petitioners provide results of analysis derived from studies 
that have become available since the current dust lead standards were 
promulgated in 2001. Studies referenced by petitioners, include: Dixon 
et al. (2009) (Ref. 2), National Center for Healthy Housing (rev. 2006) 
(Ref. 3), Wilson (2008) (Ref. 4), and the Cincinnati Children's 
Hospital Medical Center's ``HOME Study.''
    Citing their analysis of data from the National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999-2004 (Refs. 2 and 4), 
the petitioners conclude that:
    1. ``4.6% of children with an average age of 33 months living in 
pre-1978 homes would have a blood lead level of 10 [mu]g/[deciliter]dL 
or greater when their floor dust lead loading was 12 [mu]g/ft\2\.''
    2. ``At a floor dust lead loading of 12 [mu]g/ft\2\, there is 95% 
confidence that no more than 7.9% of children would have a blood lead 
level of 10 [mu]g/dL or greater.''
    3. ``5.1% of children would have a blood lead level of 10 [mu]g/dL 
or greater when their window sill dust lead loading was 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\.'' Based on this information the petitioners conclude that 
``[u]sing EPA's criteria of protecting 95% of children from an elevated 
blood lead level (currently defined as 10 [mu]g/dL or greater), dust 
standards of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills should be adopted.'' Petition at 3.
    From their own ``Study of HUD's Risk Assessment Methodology in 
Three U.S. Communities'' (Ref .3), the petitioners assert ``that 
children living in homes with floor dust lead levels under 20 [mu]g/
ft\2\ had proportionally fewer elevated blood lead levels than children 
living in homes where the floor dust lead loading exceeded 20 [mu]g/
ft\2\.'' The petitioners further assert, based on on-going analysis of 
the ``HOME Study,'' that ``lower dust standards are achievable.'' 
Petition at 4.
    The petitioners also contend that ``the economic consequences of a 
rule based on the standards recommended in this petition will be less 
than EPA originally estimated when it adopted the current standards.'' 
They provide that in the January 5, 2001 final rule (Ref. 5), EPA 
estimated that 22 million homes would have lead dust hazards based on a 
standard of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, and assert that the their ``review of the 
Six-Year Follow-Up Study and the HOME Study demonstrated that current 
lead hazard control practices are adequate to reduce dust lead below 
the levels recommended in the petition.'' The petitioners also assert 
that the ``NHANES data suggest that less than 15% of pre-1978 homes-9.8 
million homes-would be classified as having a dust lead hazard.'' 
Petition at 5.
    When reviewing the regulatory definition of lead-based paint at 40 
CFR 745.103 and 745.223, the petitioners note that EPA simply adopted 
that statutory standard: Lead-based paint means paint or other surface 
coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm\2\ or 
more than 0.5% by weight. Petitioners further note that HUD used the 
same definition in its Lead-Safe Housing Rule.
    To support their request that EPA lower the lead level in the 
definition of lead-based paint, petitioners explain that ``under the 
current standards, paint that contains less than 5,000 ppm of lead 
would not be considered lead-based paint. As a result, when a lead 
inspector or lead risk assessor documents levels of 4,500 ppm of lead 
in the paint, the buyer or tenant would be told that lead-based paint 
is not present. The buyer or tenant would be unaware of the potential 
dangers of disturbing the paint.'' Petition at 6.
    The petitioners estimate that ``the economic consequences of this 
change

[[Page 51276]]

in the definition of lead-based paint would primarily impact those 
buildings that already have been tested for the presence of lead-based 
paint by a certified lead risk assessor or lead inspector and found to 
have levels of lead in the paint between 600 ppm and 5,000 ppm (and the 
equivalent in mg/cm\2\).'' Petition at 7.

IV. EPA Seeks Public Comment

    Under TSCA section 21, EPA must either grant or deny a petition 
within 90 days. EPA is providing this opportunity for the public to 
comment on, or provide any additional information relevant to, the 
issues identified in the petition. In order for the Agency to consider 
such comments within the 90-day petition review period, EPA must 
receive the comments on or before October 21, 2009 (see ADDRESSES).
    In assessing the usability of any data or information that may be 
submitted, EPA plans to follow the guidelines in EPA's ``A Summary of 
General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and 
Technical Information'' (EPA 100B-03/001), referred to as the 
``Assessment Factors Document.'' The ``Assessment Factors Document'' 
was published in the Federal Register issue of July 1, 2003 (Ref. 6).

V. References

    1. National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes 
and Sierra Club. Letter from Rebecca Morley, National Center for 
Healthy Housing; Patrick MacRoy, Alliance for Healthy Homes; and Tom 
Neltner, Sierra Club to Administrator Jackson, Environmental Protection 
Agency. Re: Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding the Paint and Dust Lead 
Standards. August 10, 2009.
    2. Dixon, S.L.; Gaitens, J.M.; Jacobs, D.E., et al. (2009) Exposure 
of U.S. children to residential dust lead, 1999-2004: II: The 
contribution of lead-contaminated dust to children's blood lead levels. 
Environmental Health Perspectives. 117(3): 468-474.
    3. National Center for Healthy Housing (rev. 2006) Study of HUDs 
Risk Assessment Methodology in Three U.S. Communities: Final Report, 
Columbia, MD (accessed 5-13-2009: https://www.nchh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HZUenslvU/0=&tabid=217).
    4. Wilson, Jonathan. (2008) Should the EPA Lead Dust Standards be 
Lowered? (accessed 5-8-2009: https://www.healthyhomestraining.org/Research/Translational_Research_11-17_PbDust_Standard_r2.1.pdf).
    5. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL-6763-5). 
Available on-line at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    6. EPA. A Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the 
Quality of Scientific and Technical Information; Notice. Federal 
Register (68 FR 39086, July 1, 2003) (FRL-7520-2). Available on-line at 
https://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/assess.htm.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Lead dust hazard 
standards.


    Dated: September 29, 2009.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 
Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. E9-23929 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.