Review of Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels, 37810-37819 [2020-13582]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37810-37819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13582]



[[Page 37810]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063; FRL-10009-95]
RIN 2070-AK50


Review of Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Reducing childhood lead exposure is a priority for EPA. As 
part of EPA's efforts to reduce childhood lead exposure, backed by the 
President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
to Children, EPA evaluated the current dust-lead clearance levels 
(DLCL). Clearance levels are currently defined as the maximum amount of 
lead permitted in dust on a surface following completion of an 
abatement activity. Surface dust is collected via dust wipe samples 
that are sent to a laboratory for analysis. The post-abatement dust-
lead levels must be below the clearance levels. The DLCL have not 
changed since they were issued in 2001. EPA is now proposing to lower 
the DLCL from 40 micrograms of per square feet ([mu]g/ft\2\) and 250 
[mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window 
sills, respectively.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 24, 2020

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute.
     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: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service 
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC 
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Claire Brisse, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-
564-9004; email address: [email protected]. These phone numbers may 
also be reached by individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who 
have speech disabilities, through the Federal Relay Service's teletype 
service at 800-877-8339.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you conduct Lead-
Based Paint (LBP) activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.227, if you 
operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 
745.225, if you are a firm or individual who must be certified to 
conduct LBP activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you 
conduct rehabilitations or maintenance activities in most pre-1978 
housing that is covered by a Federal housing assistance program in 
accordance with 24 CFR part 35. You may also be affected by this action 
if you operate a laboratory that is recognized by EPA's National Lead 
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) in accordance with 40 CFR 
745.90, 745.223, 745.227, 745.327. You may also be affected by this 
action, in accordance with 40 CFR 745.107 and 24 CFR 35.88, as the 
seller or lessor of target housing, which is most pre-1978 housing. See 
40 CFR 745.103 and 24 CFR 35.86. The following list of North American 
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine 
whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities 
may include:
     Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-
family housing construction, multi-family housing construction, 
residential remodelers.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., 
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall 
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, 
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential 
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
     Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
     Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), 
e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.
     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), 
e.g., training providers.
     Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building 
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling 
technicians.
     Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., 
firms and supervisors engaged in LBP activities.
     Testing laboratories (NAICS code 541380) that analyze dust 
wipe samples for lead.
     Federal agencies that own residential property (NAICS code 
92511, 92811).
     Property owners, and property owners that receive 
assistance through Federal housing programs (NAICS code 531110, 
531311).

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is proposing this rule under sections 401 and 402 of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as created by 
Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (also 
known as the ``Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 
1992'' or ``Title X'') (Pub. L. 102-550) (Ref. 1).
    TSCA section 402 (15 U.S.C. 2682) directs EPA to regulate LBP 
activities, which include risk assessments, inspections, and 
abatements. TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C. 2681) defines abatements as 
``measures designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards'' 
and the term includes ``all . . . cleanup . . . and post[-]abatement 
clearance testing activities'' (15 U.S.C. 2681(1)). EPA is further 
directed, in promulgating the regulations, to ``tak[e] into account 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety'' (15 U.S.C. 2682(a)(1)).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    Clearance levels are currently defined as ``the maximum amount of 
lead permitted in dust on a surface following

[[Page 37811]]

completion of an abatement activity'' (40 CFR 745.223). Surface dust is 
collected via dust wipe samples that are sent to a laboratory for 
analysis. The post-abatement dust-lead levels must be below the 
clearance levels, which are the standard used to evaluate the 
effectiveness of post-abatement cleanings. In 2001, EPA originally 
established DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
window sills and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window troughs in a final rule 
entitled, ``Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead.'' See 66 FR 
1206, January 5, 2001, also known as the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 
2). EPA is proposing to revise the DLCL, set by the 2001 LBP Hazards 
Rule, from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floor dust and from 250 
[mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sill dust. As explained 
elsewhere in this preamble, EPA is not proposing to revise the DLCL for 
window troughs at this time. The proposed DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills would not apply 
retroactively; that is, this proposed rule would not impose retroactive 
requirements on regulated entities that have previously performed post-
abatement clearance testing using the original DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
on floors or 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills. While EPA's dust-lead 
hazard standards (DLHS) do not compel property owners to evaluate their 
property for hazards or take control actions (40 CFR 745.61(c)), if 
someone opts to perform a lead-based paint activity such as an 
abatement, then EPA's regulations set requirements for doing so (40 CFR 
745.220(d)). This proposed rule, if finalized, would require 
individuals and firms who perform an abatement to achieve the proposed 
DLCL at 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills at 
the end of the abatement, which the 2019 rule updating the DLHS 
(``Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of Lead-
Based Paint,'' 84 FR 32632, July 9, 2019 (FRL-9995-49), also known as 
the 2019 DLHS Rule) did not require under EPA's regulations (Ref. 3). 
EPA is requesting comment on the appropriateness of the proposed, lower 
DLCL for both floors and window sills.
    EPA is also proposing to clarify language that defines the 
achievement of post-abatement clearance, which explains what dust-lead 
levels are permitted on a surface following an abatement that would 
achieve clearance. The post-abatement clearance procedures set forth in 
40 CFR 745.227 state that clearance is not achieved when post-abatement 
dust-lead levels (which are a measure of the mass of lead per area, 
commonly expressed in micrograms per square foot ([mu]g/ft\2\)) equal 
or exceed the clearance levels (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(vii)). However, 40 
CFR 745.223 defines clearance levels as ``the maximum amount of lead 
permitted in dust on a surface following completion of an abatement 
activity'' (40 CFR 745.223) (emphasis added). To resolve this 
discrepancy, EPA is proposing to conform the definition of clearance 
levels found in 40 CFR 745.223 to the post-abatement clearance 
procedures in 40 CFR 745.227, in order to clarify in the definition 
that the post-abatement dust-lead levels must be below the clearance 
levels.
    EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal, 
including the window sill clearance options (40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 60 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 80 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\) as presented in EPA's 
Technical Support Document that accompanies this proposal (Ref. 4).

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    Reducing childhood lead exposure is an EPA priority. EPA continues 
to collaborate with its federal partners to reduce lead exposures and, 
in so doing, to explore ways to strengthen its relationships and 
partnerships with states, tribes, and localities. In December 2018, the 
President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
to Children released the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead 
Exposures and Associated Health Impacts (Lead Action Plan) (Ref. 5) to 
enhance the Federal Government's efforts to identify and reduce lead 
exposure while ensuring children impacted by such exposure are getting 
the support and care they need to prevent or mitigate any associated 
health effects. The Lead Action Plan is helping Federal agencies work 
strategically and collaboratively to reduce exposure to lead and 
improve children's health. Considering revisions to the DLCL is an 
action that EPA, in the Action Plan, committed to undertake given the 
importance of childhood lead exposure; dust-lead is a significant 
source of exposure for young children (Ref. 6).
    In the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule, EPA first established the DLHS that 
identify dust-lead hazards and the clearance levels used to evaluate 
the effectiveness of cleaning following an abatement. Abatements are 
designed to permanently eliminate LBP hazards including dust-lead 
hazards.
    In 2019, EPA re-evaluated the DLHS (Ref. 3). Based on that 
evaluation, the final rule revised the DLHS from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 250 
[mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and window 
sills, respectively. EPA based that decision on the best available 
science, the Agency's review of public comments received on the 
proposal for that rule, and consideration of the potential for risk 
reduction, including whether such actions were achievable.
    At that time, EPA focused its rulemaking on the DLHS and the 
definition of LBP, which were the two actions that EPA had agreed to 
undertake in response to a 2009 citizen petition (Ref. 7). In that 
rulemaking, EPA did not propose to change DLCL in 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart L. However, EPA recognizes the important relationship between 
the DLHS and DLCL: The DLHS are used to identify dust-lead hazards and 
the DLCL are used to demonstrate that specific abatement activities 
have effectively and permanently eliminated those hazards. Therefore, 
the purpose of this rulemaking is to update the DLCL so that attaining 
these clearance levels demonstrate elimination of dust-lead hazards 
under the new standards. Accordingly, EPA is now proposing to lower the 
DLCL for floor dust to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, and to lower the DLCL for window 
sill dust to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, taking into account reliability, 
effectiveness, and safety.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has prepared an Economic Analysis (EA) of the potential 
incremental impacts associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 8) on a 
subset of target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 housing) and child-
occupied facilities affected by this proposed rule. The analysis, which 
is available in the docket, estimates incremental costs and benefits 
for abatements where a dust-lead level is between the current DLCL (40 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills) and 
alternate levels, including the proposed DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills. Based on HUD data, EPA 
estimates that the vast majority of floors and window sills are already 
clearing at levels below the proposed DLCL after the completion of an 
abatement. In addition, there is uncertainty about whether some state 
and local regulations already use the EPA DLHS as DLCL, and about 
whether some abatement contractors will voluntarily conduct additional 
cleaning to ensure that dust-lead levels fall below the DLHS following 
the completion of an abatement. If these situations occur, then the 
costs and benefits of meeting the DLCL estimated in the EA would be 
attributable to the 2019 DLHS Rule and not to the proposed regulation.
    As in the EA for the 2019 DLHS Rule, there is also uncertainty 
regarding the

[[Page 37812]]

estimated number of lead hazard reduction events that will be triggered 
by children with blood lead levels considered to be elevated. Most 
states set a blood lead level value at which an environmental 
investigation is recommended or required. Based on guidance posted on 
environmental and public health department websites for each state, 
these blood lead action levels range from 5 micrograms per deciliter 
([mu]g/dL) to 25 [mu]g/dL. In eight states (AK, IN, MD, ME, MI, NE, OR, 
and PA) the action level for an environmental investigation is a blood 
lead level of 5 [mu]g/dL. Fourteen states (CA, DC, GA, IL, KS, LA, NC, 
NH, NJ, NV, OH, TX, VT, WA, and WV) and the District of Columbia use an 
action level of 10 [mu]g/dL. Nineteen states (AL, AZ, CO, DE, FL, HI, 
IA, ID, KY, MN, MO, MS, NM, NY, RI, SC, UT, VA, and WI) use an action 
level of 15 [mu]g/dL. Four states (CT, MA, OK, and TN) use an action 
level of 20 [mu]g/dL or above. Five states (AR, MT, ND, SD, and WY) 
have no policy recommendation or requirement for the blood lead level 
at which an environmental investigation should be conducted. The 
differences between states may reflect the prevalence of lead hazards 
in each state and their relative prioritization of lead hazards and 
other funding needs.
    The EPA's analysis includes two scenarios for the number of 
instances where clearance testing is performed that will be affected by 
the rule: (1) Where dust-lead loadings are tested because a child's 
blood lead level equals or exceeds 5 [mu]g/dL (the current Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) blood lead reference value (BLRV)) 
(Ref. 9), and a loading is at or above the DLHS; and (2) where dust-
lead loadings are tested because a child's blood lead level equals or 
exceeds the action level set by the state the child lives in, and a 
loading is at or above the DLHS.
    Consequently, the economic analysis includes a range for the number 
of dust lead reduction events possibly affected by this rule changing 
the clearance levels. The low end of the range is zero. This could 
result, for example, if state or local regulations or voluntary actions 
by abatement firms already cause dust-lead levels in all housing not 
subject to the LSHR to fall below 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills. The upper end of the range is 28,000 
events, which assumes that an environmental investigation that includes 
testing the dust-lead loadings in their home occurs when a child's 
blood lead level equals or exceeds 5 [mu]g/dL. The EA also includes a 
scenario based on 6,000 events, which assumes that dust-lead loading 
tests occur in all instances when a child's blood lead level equals or 
exceeds the state action level. The benefit and cost estimates are 
highly sensitive to the range. The following is a brief outline of the 
estimated incremental impacts of this rulemaking.
     Benefits. Incremental actions to meet the proposed DLCL of 
10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills after 
abatements where a baseline post-intervention loading is between the 
current DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
window sills and the proposed DLCL would reduce exposure to lead, 
resulting in benefits from avoided adverse health effects. In the 
economic analysis of this rule, EPA quantified the benefits of reduced 
lead exposure to children from avoided Intelligence Quotient (IQ) loss 
as an indicator of improved cognitive function and, hence, lifetime 
earnings. For the subset of adverse health effects where these effects 
were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits are $0 million to 
$487 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $0 million to $106 
million per year using a 7% discount rate, with the range representing 
the uncertainties discussed above. There are additional unquantified 
benefits due to other avoided adverse health or behavioral effects in 
children, including attention-related behavioral problems, greater 
incidence of problem behaviors, decreased cognitive performance, 
reduced post-natal growth, delayed puberty, decreased hearing, and 
decreased kidney function (Ref. 10).
     Costs. This rule is estimated to affect between 0 and 
28,000 events per year that incorporate an abatement activity, and to 
result in costs of $0 to $7 million or $0 to $35 million per year using 
either a 3% or a 7% discount rate. In most events affected by the 
proposed rule additional costs are incurred for specialized cleaning 
used to reduce dust-lead loadings to below the clearance levels. In 
some instances, floors will be sealed, overlaid or replaced, or window 
sills will be sealed or repainted.
     Small entity impacts. EPA estimates that this rule may 
impact approximately 0 to 10,200 small abatement firms; 0 to 9,000 
would have cost impacts estimated at less than 1% of revenues, 0 to 
1,000 would have impacts estimated between 1% and 3%, and 0 to 250 
would have impacts estimated at greater than 3% of revenues. EPA's 
analysis assumes that in all cases the costs are borne entirely by the 
lead paint abatement firm (as opposed to being passed through to the 
property owner). However, it is more likely that some, or perhaps even 
most, of these costs will be passed on to the property owners.
     Environmental justice and protection of children. This 
rule would increase 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 or children.
     Effects on state, local, and tribal governments. The rule 
would not have any significant or unique effects on small governments, 
or federalism or tribal implications.

F. Children's Environmental Health

    Lead exposure has the potential to impact individuals of all ages, 
but it is especially harmful to young children because the developing 
brain can be particularly sensitive to environmental contaminants 
(Refs. 11, 12). Exposure to lead is associated with increased risk of a 
number of adverse health or behavioral effects in children, including 
decreased cognitive performance, greater incidence of problem 
behaviors, and increased diagnoses of attention-related behavioral 
problems (Ref. 10). Furthermore, floor dust in homes and child-care 
facilities is a significant route of exposure for young children given 
their mouthing and crawling behavior and proximity to the floor. 
Therefore, the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this 
action may have a disproportionate effect on children (Ref. 4).
    Consistent with the Agency's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to 
Children (Ref. 13), EPA has evaluated the health effects in children of 
decreased lead exposure from the proposed lowering of the DLCL. EPA 
prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking, which 
models dust-lead exposures and estimates both blood lead levels (BLLs) 
and associated impacts on IQ at the proposed DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\ versus the current DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 250 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for on floors and window sills, respectively (Ref. 4). 
While no safe level of lead in blood has been identified (Ref. 5), the 
reductions in children's blood-lead levels resulting from this rule are 
expected to reduce the risk of adverse cognitive and developmental 
effects in children. The TSD shows that health risks to young children 
decrease with decreasing dust-lead levels.

[[Page 37813]]

G. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
https://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 preparing and submitting 
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.html.

II. Background

A. Health Effects

    Lead exposure impacts individuals of all ages, but it is especially 
harmful to young children because the developing brain can be 
particularly sensitive to environmental contaminants (Ref. 11, 12). 
Ingestion of lead-contaminated dust is a major contributor to BLLs in 
children, particularly those who reside in homes built prior to 1978 
(Ref. 14, 15). Infants and young children can be more highly exposed to 
lead through floor dust at home and in child-care facilities because 
they often put their hands and other objects that can have lead from 
dust on them into their mouths (Ref. 12).
    Best available science informs EPA's understanding of the 
relationships between exposures to dust-lead loadings, BLLs, and 
adverse human health effects. These relationships are summarized in the 
Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (``Lead ISA'') (Ref. 16), which 
EPA released in June 2013, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) 
Monograph on the Health Effects of Low-Level Lead, which was released 
by the Department of Health and Human Services in June 2012 (``NTP 
Monograph'') (Ref. 10).
    The Lead ISA is a synthesis and evaluation of scientific 
information on the health and environmental effects of lead, including 
cognitive function decrements in children (Ref. 16).
    The NTP, in 2012, completed an evaluation of existing scientific 
literature to summarize the scientific evidence regarding potential 
health effects associated with low-level lead exposure as indicated by 
BLLs less than 10 [mu]g/dL. The evaluation specifically focused on the 
life stage (prenatal, childhood, adulthood) associated with these 
potential health effects, and on epidemiological evidence at BLLs less 
than 10 [mu]g/dL, because health effects at higher BLLs are well-
established. The NTP concluded that there is sufficient evidence for 
adverse health effects in children and adults at BLLs less than 10 
[mu]g/dL, and less than 5 [mu]g/dL as well. The NTP concluded that 
there is sufficient evidence that BLLs less than 10 [mu]g/dL are 
associated with delayed puberty, decreased hearing, and reduced post-
natal growth. In children, there is sufficient evidence that BLLs less 
than 5 [mu]g/dL are associated with increased diagnoses of attention-
related behavioral problems, greater incidence of problem behaviors, 
and decreased cognitive performance. There is limited evidence that 
BLLs less than 5 [mu]g/dL are associated with delayed puberty and 
decreased kidney function in children 12 years of age and older (Ref. 
10).
    For further information regarding lead and its health effects, and 
Federal actions taken to eliminate LBP hazards in housing, see the Lead 
Action Plan, the TSD for this rulemaking and the background section of 
the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, issued on April 22, 2008 
(also referred to as the ``RRP Rule,'' 73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008, 
codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E) (Ref. 4, 5, 17).

B. Federal Actions To Reduce Lead Exposures

    In 1992, Congress enacted Title X of the Housing and Community 
Development Act (also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992 or ``Title X'') (Ref. 1) in an effort to 
eliminate LBP hazards. Section 1018 of Title X required EPA and the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to promulgate 
joint regulations for disclosure of any known LBP or any known LBP 
hazards in target housing offered for sale or lease (known as the 
``Disclosure Rule'') (Ref. 18). (``Target housing'' is defined in 
section 401(17) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2681(17).) On March 6, 1996, the 
Disclosure Rule was codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, for EPA, 
and 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, for HUD. It requires information 
disclosure activities before a purchaser or lessee is obligated under a 
contract to purchase or lease target housing.
    TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering 
LBP activities to ensure persons performing these activities are 
properly trained, that training programs are accredited, and that 
contractors performing these activities are certified. On August 29, 
1996, EPA published final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that 
govern LBP inspections, risk assessments, and abatements in target 
housing and child occupied facilities (COFs) (also referred to as the 
``LBP Activities Rule'', codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L) (Ref. 
19). The definition of ``child-occupied facility'' is codified at 40 
CFR 745.223 for purposes of LBP activities. Regulations promulgated 
under TSCA section 402(a) contain standards for performing LBP 
activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
    TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to promulgate regulations 
covering renovation or remodeling activities in target housing, public 
buildings constructed before 1978, and commercial buildings that create 
LBP hazards. EPA issued the final RRP Rule under TSCA section 402(c)(3) 
on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 17).
    TSCA section 403, 15 U.S.C. 2683, gives EPA a related authority to 
carry out responsibilities for addressing LBP hazards under the 
Disclosure and LBP Activities Rules. TSCA section 403 requires EPA to 
promulgate regulations that ``identify . . . lead-based paint hazards, 
lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil'' for purposes of 
TSCA Title IV and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 
of 1992. LBP hazards, under TSCA section 401, are defined as conditions 
of LBP and lead-contaminated dust and soil that ``would result'' in 
adverse human health effects (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). TSCA section 401 
defines lead-contaminated dust as ``surface dust in residential 
dwellings'' that contains lead in excess of levels determined ``to pose 
a threat of adverse health effects'' (15 U.S.C. 2681(11)). The 2001 LBP 
Hazards Rule established the DLHS to identify conditions of lead-
contaminated dust that would result in adverse human health effects. 
These DLHS were revised in the 2019 DLHS Rule and are used to identify 
dust-lead hazards.
    The 2001 LBP Hazards Rule also established the DLCL (also referred 
to as ``clearance levels'' and sometimes referred to elsewhere as 
``clearance standards'') under TSCA section 402(a). These clearance 
levels are used to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning following an 
abatement. As defined in TSCA Section 401 abatements are designed to 
permanently eliminate LBP hazards, including dust-lead hazards. For 
purposes of the DLCL, post-clearance dust-lead loadings below the

[[Page 37814]]

DLHS indicate permanent elimination of dust-lead hazards.
    Pursuant to TSCA section 404, 15 U.S.C. 2684, and EPA's regulations 
at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, interested states, territories, and 
federally recognized tribes may apply for and receive authorization to 
administer their own LBP Activities and RRP programs. EPA's regulations 
are intended to reduce exposures, and the LBP Activities regulations in 
particular are intended to identify and mitigate hazardous levels of 
lead. Authorized programs must be ``at least as protective of human 
health and the environment as the corresponding federal program,'' and 
must provide for ``adequate enforcement.'' See 40 CFR 745.324(e)(2). 
The 2019 DLHS Rule revised the regulation to improve the process for 
states, federally recognized tribes, and territories with authorized 
LBP Activities programs to demonstrate that their programs meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 745.325 (by submitting a report pursuant to 40 
CFR 745.324(h) with such demonstration within two years of the 
effective date of a revision).
    HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) is codified in 24 CFR part 35, 
subparts B through R. The LSHR implements sections 1012 and 1013 of 
Title X. Under Title X, HUD has specific authority to control LBP and 
LBP hazards in federally-assisted target housing (including COFs that 
are part of an assisted target housing property covered by the LSHR, 
because they are part of the common area of the property). The LSHR 
aims in part to ensure that federally-owned or federally-assisted 
target housing is free of LBP hazards (Ref. 20). Under the LSHR, when a 
child under age six (6) with an elevated BLL residing in certain 
categories of assisted target housing is identified, the ``designated 
party'' and/or the housing owner shall undertake certain actions.

C. Applicability and Uses of the DLCL

    The DLCL reviewed in this regulation support the LBP Activities 
program, and apply to target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 housing) and 
COFs (i.e., pre-1978 non-residential properties where children under 
the age of six (6) spend a significant amount of time such as child 
care centers and kindergartens). Apart from COFs, no other public and 
commercial buildings are covered by this rule. For further background 
on the types of buildings to which the LBP Activities program apply, 
refer to the proposed and final 2001 LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 2).
    The DLCL are incorporated into the post-abatement work practices 
outlined in the LBP Activities Rule (40 CFR 745.227). LBP Activities 
regulations apply to inspections, risk assessments, project design and 
abatement activities. Pre-abatement dust-lead testing occurs during a 
risk assessment, often initiated to comply with HUD's LSHR or in 
response to discovery of a child with a BLL that equals or exceeds the 
current CDC BLRV (Ref. 9), or the action level set by the state the 
child lives in. The objective of a risk assessment is to determine, and 
then report, the existence, nature, severity, and location of LBP 
hazards in residential dwellings and COFs through an on-site 
investigation. During a risk assessment, a risk assessor collects 
environmental samples that include dust wipe samples from floors and 
window sills that are sent to an NLLAP-recognized laboratory for 
analysis. The risk assessor then compares the results of the dust wipe 
samples against the DLHS. If the dust-lead loadings from the samples 
are at or above the applicable DLHS, indicating LBP hazards are 
present, the risk assessor will identify acceptable options for 
controlling the hazards in the respective property, which may include 
abatements and/or interim controls. TSCA section 401 defines abatements 
as, ``measures designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint 
hazards,'' (15 U.S.C. 2681(1)), while interim controls are ``designed 
to temporarily reduce human exposure or likely exposure to lead-based 
paint hazards,'' (40 CFR 745.83 and 745.223). These options should 
allow the property owner to make an informed decision about what 
actions should be taken to protect the health of current and future 
residents. Risk assessments can be performed only by certified risk 
assessors.
    The DLCL are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a cleaning 
following an abatement. After an abatement is complete, a risk assessor 
or inspector determines whether there are any ``visible amounts of 
dust, debris or residue,'' which will need to be removed before 
clearance sampling takes place (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). Once the area is 
free of visible dust, debris and residue, and one hour or more after 
final post-abatement cleaning ceases, clearance sampling for dust-lead 
(via dust wipe samples) can take place and will be conducted ``using 
documented methodologies that incorporate adequate quality control 
procedures'' (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). Only a properly trained and 
certified risk assessor or inspector can conduct clearance sampling. A 
NLLAP-recognized laboratory must analyze the dust wipe samples and a 
risk assessor or inspector must compare the results from window sills 
and floors (and window troughs) to the appropriate DLCL. Every sample 
must test below the corresponding DLCL, and if a single sample is equal 
to or greater than the corresponding DLCL, then the abatement fails 
clearance and the components represented by the sample must be 
recleaned and retested (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). After the dust wipe 
samples show dust-lead loadings below the DLCL, an abatement report is 
prepared, copies of any reports required under the LBP Activities Rule 
are provided to the building owner (and to potential lessees and 
purchasers under the LBP Disclosure Rule by those building owners or 
their agents), and all required records are retained by the abatement 
firm or by the individuals who developed each report.
    The DLCL cannot be used to identify housing that is free from 
exposure to lead, as exposures are dependent on many factors. For 
instance, the physical condition of a property may change over time, 
resulting in an increased exposure.

III. Proposed Rule

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the DLCL so that 
attaining these clearance levels demonstrate elimination of the dust-
lead hazard under the new standards. EPA is proposing to lower the DLCL 
for floors from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\. EPA is proposing to 
lower the DLCL for window sills from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\. Because there is no DLHS for window troughs, EPA is proposing no 
change to the DLCL for window troughs at this time. EPA is requesting 
comment on each of these DLCL.

A. Approach for Reviewing and the Selection of the Dust-Lead Clearance 
Levels

    As EPA explained in the LBP Activities Rule (Ref. 19) (61 FR 45778, 
45779), the work practice standards covered by those regulations are 
intended to ensure that abatements are conducted reliably, effectively, 
and safely. While considering those three criteria, the 2001 LBP 
Hazards Rule modified the work practice standards to include dust-lead 
clearance levels, which ``are used to evaluate the effectiveness of 
cleaning following an abatement.'' (Ref. 2) (66 FR 1206, 1211). The 
definition of abatement includes cleanup and post-abatement clearance 
testing activities, and abatements are designed to permanently 
eliminate LBP hazards including dust-lead hazards (40 CFR 745.223). A 
dust-lead hazard is identified by the DLHS and the DLCL are used to 
demonstrate that abatement activities effectively and permanently

[[Page 37815]]

eliminate those hazards. Therefore, in choosing which DLCL to propose 
in this rulemaking, EPA considered how the DLCL will support the 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety of abatements to permanently 
eliminate LBP hazards.
    The 2001 LBP Hazards Rule adopted the rationale outlined in EPA's 
1998 proposed rule (``Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead,'' 63 
FR 30302, 30341, June 3, 1998) (Ref. 21). See also Ref. 2 (66 FR 1206, 
1222-1223). EPA chose DLCL that were ``achievable using products and 
methods known to be reliable and effective'' (Ref. 21). In the 2018 
proposed rule for the 2019 DLHS Rule (``Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard 
Standards and the Definition of Lead-Based Paint,'' 83 CFR 30889, July 
2, 2018), EPA acknowledged that if the DLHS were set too low, the 
effectiveness of the LBP Activities program may be harmed if the 
abatement projects became overly expensive and time consuming due to 
issues of achievability (Ref. 22). That same concern for achievability 
applies to EPA's decision on which DLCL to propose in this rulemaking. 
However, in the final 2019 DLHS Rule, EPA examined results of a survey 
of lead hazard control grantees conducted by HUD's Office of Lead 
Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH), and found that:

    ``reductions in dust-lead levels to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 
to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills were shown to be technically 
achievable using existing cleaning practices, even though, at the 
time, the reductions had to be just down to 40 and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
respectively'' (Ref. 23).

    Therefore, the proposed DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills are shown to be achievable using available 
products and methods that are effective and reliable in permanently 
eliminating LBP hazards. For further information on the HUD Clearance 
Survey, see the preamble to the 2019 DLHS Rule.
    In addition to the specific criteria of reliability, effectiveness, 
and safety, the 2001 LBP Hazards rulemaking considered the DLCL in the 
broader context of Title X, and selected DLCL that are compatible with 
a ``workable framework for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and 
reduction'' (Ref. 21). To this end, EPA chose DLCL that were consistent 
with the DLHS in part to ensure they were ``as easy as possible to 
understand and implement'' (Ref. 21).
    EPA maintains the concern for consistency between the DLCL and DLHS 
for this rulemaking. During the DLHS rulemaking, multiple commenters 
claimed that not revising clearance levels creates confusion (Ref. 24). 
Compounding the potential for such confusion is the fact that, as 
indicated in the 2019 DLHS Rule and described in greater detail 
elsewhere in this preamble, HUD cross-references EPA's DLHS for 
clearance work practices under HUD's LSHR. This means that if EPA 
chooses different DLCL than the DLHS, a segment of the regulated 
community will have two sets of clearance levels to consider. Selecting 
DLCL at 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills 
will mitigate this confusion within the regulated community.

B. Technical Analysis

    The TSD that accompanies this proposal evaluated the 2001 DLCL, the 
background dust-lead level, and the five DLCL options (15 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills; and 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 60 [mu]g/ft\2\, 80 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills) with values between background (lowest) 
and the 2001 DLCL (highest). The methods for estimating exposure and 
health impacts utilized for the 2019 DLHS rulemaking are reflected in 
the TSD for this rule to analyze the DLCL options. The various 
components of the model and input parameters used in the TSD for the 
DLHS and this rulemaking have been the subject of multiple Science 
Advisory Board Reviews, workshops and publications in the peer review 
literature (Ref. 4, 25). The analysis outlined in the 2019 DLHS Rule 
was used to identify conditions that would result in adverse health 
effects. Where the DLHS are used to identify conditions that would 
result in adverse health effects, the DLCL must demonstrate that those 
conditions identified by the DLHS have been eliminated. Therefore, the 
health impact analysis for the DLCL is less central to the decision-
making for this rule than it was to the 2019 DLHS Rule. Regardless, EPA 
must understand the impact on public health when selecting the DLCL in 
order to inform the economic analysis.
    The analyses that EPA developed and presented in both the TSD for 
the 2019 DLHS Rule and the TSD accompanying this proposal, were 
specifically designed to model potential health effects that might 
accrue to the subpopulation, i.e., children living in pre-1940 and pre-
1978 housing. EPA notes that its different program offices estimate 
exposures for different populations, different media, and under 
different statutory requirements and thus different models or 
parameters may be a better fit for their purpose. As such, the approach 
and modeling parameters chosen for this rulemaking should not 
necessarily be construed as appropriate for or consistent with the 
goals of other EPA programs (Ref. 4).
    In its evaluation, EPA estimated BLLs and IQ changes as a proxy for 
changes in cognitive function in children below the age of six (6) 
exposed long-term to these analyzed dust-lead loading levels. As also 
reflected in the 2019 DLHS Rule, EPA generated two different modeling 
approaches to estimate the quantitative relationships between dust-lead 
and BLL data. The first approach used mechanistic modeling data that 
include consideration of age-specific ingestion rates, activity 
patterns, and background exposures. The second approach used empirical 
data that includes co-reported dust-lead and BLL measurements in the 
homes of children. The dust-lead and BLL data are used to develop an 
empirical relationship to estimate BLL for each candidate DLCL. Both 
approaches (mechanistic and empirical) are compared to provide 
independent confirmation of the relationship between dust-lead loadings 
and BLL. For additional information summarizing the methodologies 
employed in the TSD, see the 2018 preamble to the proposed DLHS rule 
(Ref. 22).

C. Effect of the Proposed Revised DLCL on EPA and HUD Programs

1. LBP Activities Rule--EPA Abatements
    Abatements are any measures or set of measures designed to 
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards and include activities 
such as the removal of paint and dust, the permanent enclosure or 
encapsulation of lead-based paint, the replacement of painted surfaces 
or fixtures, and all preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement 
clearance testing activities associated with such measures. Abatements 
must be conducted by certified abatement workers and supervisors. After 
LBP abatements are conducted, EPA's regulations require a certified 
inspector or risk assessor to conduct post-abatement clearance testing 
(via dust wipe samples) of the abated area. If the dust wipe sample 
results show dust-lead loadings equal to or exceeding the applicable 
clearance level, ``the components represented by the failed sample 
shall be recleaned and retested.'' See 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(vii). In 
other words, the abatement is not cleared until the dust wipe samples 
in the work area are below the clearance levels. Under this proposed 
rule, inspectors and risk assessors would compare dust wipe sampling 
results for floors and window sills to the lower proposed DLCL and the 
results for window

[[Page 37816]]

troughs to the current DLCL. Dust wipe sampling results at or above the 
proposed DLCL would indicate that the components represented by the 
sample must be recleaned and retested. The proposed rule does not 
change any other risk assessment requirements.
2. Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule
    Revising the DLCL will not trigger new requirements under the 
existing RRP Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart E). The RRP Rule requires 
post-renovation cleaning verification under 40 CFR 745.85(b), but the 
rule does not require dust wipe sampling and analysis using the DLCL. 
However, although optional under the RRP Rule, dust wipe sampling for 
clearance using the DLCL in accordance with the LBP Activities Rule (40 
CFR 745.227(e)(8)) may be required by contract or by another Federal, 
state, territorial, tribal, or local law or regulation. At this time, 
other than HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule, EPA is not familiar with other 
laws and regulations that require clearance testing using EPA's DLCL.
3. EPA-HUD Disclosure Rule
    Under the Disclosure Rule, prospective sellers and lessors of 
target housing must provide purchasers and renters with a federally 
approved lead hazard information pamphlet and disclose known LBP and/or 
LBP hazards, and any available records, reports, and additional 
information pertaining to LBP and/or LBP hazards. The information 
disclosure activities are required before a purchaser or renter is 
obligated under a contract to purchase or lease target housing. Records 
or reports pertaining to LBP and/or LBP hazards must be disclosed, 
including results from post-abatement clearance testing, regardless of 
whether the level of dust-lead is below the clearance levels.
    The proposed DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
on window sills will not result in additional disclosures because there 
are no new information collection requirements to consider under this 
proposed rule. Property owners would already be disclosing results, 
records, reports, and any additional information that show dust-lead 
below the original DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors or below 250 [mu]g/
ft\2\ on window sills, and any results, records, and reports of 
additional cleaning due to lower DLCL would be reflected in this same 
record.
4. LSHR Clearance Requirements
    The DLCL in this proposal will not change the clearance levels that 
apply to hazard reduction activities under HUD's LSHR because the LSHR 
currently requires clearance at the DLHS level, which is reflected by 
the proposed DLCL. The LSHR requires certain hazard reduction 
activities to be performed in certain federally-owned and assisted 
target housing including abatements, interim controls, paint 
stabilization, and ongoing LBP maintenance. Hazard reduction activities 
are required in this housing when LBP hazards are identified or when 
maintenance or rehabilitation activities disturb paint known or 
presumed to be LBP. The LSHR's clearance regulations, 24 CFR 35.1340, 
specify requirements for clearance of these projects (when they disturb 
more than de minimis amounts of known or presumed lead-based painted 
surfaces, as defined in 24 CFR 35.1350(d)), including a visual 
assessment, dust sampling, submission of samples for analysis for lead 
in dust, interpretation of sampling results, and preparation of a 
report. As explained in the preamble to the 2019 DLHS Rule (Ref. 3), 
the LSHR clearance regulations cross-reference EPA's DLHS. As a result, 
the LSHR clearance standards were lowered to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills, respectively, when the 2019 
DLHS Rule became effective on January 6, 2020. Accordingly, activities 
under the LSHR are currently required to be cleared using EPA's DLHS.
5. 2017 Policy Guidance--HUD Requirements for Lead Hazard Control 
Grants
    On February 16, 2017, HUD's OLHCHH issued policy guidance to 
establish new and more protective requirements for dust-lead action 
levels for its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control (LBPHC) and Lead Hazard 
Reduction Demonstration (LHRD) grantees (the requirements also apply to 
related HUD grants under similar names, including Lead Hazard Reduction 
(LHR) grants and their High Impact Neighborhoods and Highest Lead-Based 
Paint Abatement Needs grant categories (Ref. 26). In particular, the 
guidance adopted clearance levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for floors and window sills, respectively, for lead hazard control 
activities performed under these grant programs. The change in 
requirements were supported by scientific evidence on the adverse 
effects of lead exposure at low blood-lead levels in children, (<10 
[mu]g/dL) as well as the achievability of lower clearance levels based 
on the Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey. The guidance clearance 
levels for floors and window sills are equal to the proposed DLCL. 
Consequently, the proposed changes to the DLCL that EPA may promulgate 
will not affect the clearance levels used by the LBPHC and LHRD 
grantees.
6. HUD Guidelines
    The HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards in Housing were developed in 1995 under section 1017 of 
Title X. They provide detailed, comprehensive, technical information on 
how to identify LBP hazards in residential housing and COFs, and how to 
control such hazards safely and efficiently. The Guidelines were 
revised in 2012 to incorporate new information, technological advances, 
and new Federal regulations, including EPA's LBP hazard standards. 
Based on EPA's changes to the DLHS in 2019 and any changes, if made to 
the DLCL, HUD plans to revise Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on risk 
assessment and reevaluation and Chapter 15 on clearance, and make 
conforming changes elsewhere as needed.
7. Previous LBP-Related Activities
    The DLCL are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a cleaning 
following an abatement. After the dust wipe samples show dust-lead 
loadings below the DLCL, an abatement report is prepared, copies of any 
reports required under the LBP Activities Rule are provided to the 
building owner (and to potential lessees and purchasers under the LBP 
Disclosure Rule by those building owners or their agents), and all 
required records are also retained by the abatement firm or by the 
individuals who developed each report. The proposed DLCL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills will not impose 
retroactive requirements on regulated entities that have previously 
performed post-abatement clearance testing using the original DLCL of 
40 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors or 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills. The new 
requirements would only apply to post-abatement clearance sampling and 
analysis conducted after the effective date of the final rule.

D. State Authorization

    Pursuant to TSCA section 404 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 
745, subpart Q, interested states, territories and federally recognized 
tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer their own 
LBP Activities programs, as long as their programs are at least as 
protective of human health and the environment as the EPA's program and 
provide adequate enforcement. As part of the authorization process, 
states, territories

[[Page 37817]]

and federally recognized tribes must demonstrate to EPA that they meet 
the requirements of the LBP Activities Rule. If EPA finalizes the lower 
DLCL, a state, territory or federally recognized tribe must demonstrate 
that it meets the new requirements in its application for authorization 
or, if already authorized, in a report submitted under 40 CFR 
745.324(h) no later than two years after the effective date of the new 
requirements. If an application for authorization has been submitted 
but not yet approved, the state, territory or federally recognized 
tribe must demonstrate that it meets the new requirements either by 
amending its application, or in a report it submits under 40 CFR 
745.324(h) no later than two years after the effective date of the new 
requirements.

IV. Request for Comments

    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of this proposal, 
including but not limited to the topics specifically discussed in this 
paragraph. For example, EPA requests comment on EPA's proposal to lower 
the DLCL for floor dust to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and for window sill dust to 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\. Because there is no DLHS for window troughs, EPA is 
proposing no change to the DLCL for window troughs at this time, and 
requests comment on this topic as well. EPA is requesting comment on 
the appropriateness of each of the DLCL, including the effectiveness of 
the proposed DLCL to ensure that an abatement has permanently 
eliminated a dust-lead hazard. EPA is also requesting comment on the 
ability of laboratories to analyze dust wipe samples in accordance with 
these proposed lower levels. In some cases, window sills may have a 
small surface area, therefore, EPA is requesting comment on the ability 
to collect a sufficient amount of dust-lead to meet all laboratories' 
quantitation limits with their existing analytical equipment for the 
range of window sill clearance options, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 60 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
80 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ as presented in the EA and TSD. For 
further information on laboratory capabilities, see the preamble to the 
2019 DLHS Rule. In general, EPA is requesting comments on all the 
options (15 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills; and 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 60 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 80 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills) in the EA 
and TSD, as well as the methods, models, and data used to analyze the 
options presented in the EA and the TSD. In particular, EPA is 
requesting comment on the assumption, derived from HUD data, that 18% 
of the housing units that conduct abatements would not achieve dust-
lead loadings below the 2019 DLHS of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills in the baseline.

V. References

    The following is a list of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the 
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Public Law 102-550, Title X--Housing and Community Development 
Act, enacted October 28, 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or ``Title X'') (42 U.S.C. 
4851 et seq.). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap63A-sec4851.htm.
2. U.S. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL-6763-5). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/05/01-84/lead-identification-of-dangerous-levels-of-lead.
3. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the 
Definition of Lead-Based Paint; Final Rule. Federal Register (84 FR 
32632, July 9, 2019) (FRL-9995-49). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/09/2019-14024/review-of-the-dust-lead-hazard-standards-and-the-definition-of-lead-based-paint.
4. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Technical 
Support Document for Residential Dust-lead Clearance Levels 
Rulemaking Estimation of Blood Lead Levels and Effects from 
Exposures to Dust-lead. June 2020.
5. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children. Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead 
Exposures and Associated Health Impacts. December 2018. https://www.epa.gov/lead/federal-action-plan-reduce-childhood-lead-exposure.
6. U.S. EPA. Implementation Status of EPA Actions Under the 2018 
Federal Action Plan To Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and 
Associated Health Impacts: Fiscal Year 2019, 4th Quarter. October 
2019. https://www.epa.gov/leadactionplanimplementation/implementation-status-epa-actions-under-2018-federal-action-plan-1#goal1.
7. Sierra Club et al. Letter to Lisa Jackson RE: Citizen Petition to 
EPA Regarding the Paint and Dust Lead Standards. August 10, 2009. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/epa_lead_standards_petition_final.pdf.
8. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic 
Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Revise the TSCA Dust-Lead Clearance 
Levels. June 2020.
9. CDC. Childhood Blood Lead Levels in Children Aged <5 Years--
United States, 2009-2014. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 
Vol. 66 No. 3, January 20, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6603a1.htm.
10. HHS, National Toxicology Program. NTP Monograph on Health 
Effects of Low-Level Lead. National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. NIH Pub. No. 12-5996. 
ISSN 2330-1279. June 13, 2012. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographhealtheffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf.
11. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of 
Toxicology and Human Health Sciences. Lead--ToxFAQsTM CAS #7439-92-
1. August 2007. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts13.pdf.
12. U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final Report). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F. September 2011. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
13. U.S. EPA. Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children. Policy. 
October 1995. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf.
14. Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & Brown, J. 
Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide 
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives, 
125(9), 097009-097009. September 12, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605.
15. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children. Key Federal Programs to Reduce Childhood Lead 
Exposures and Eliminate Associated Health Impacts. November 2016. 
https://ptfceh.niehs.nih.gov/features/assets/files/key_federal_programs_to_reduce_childhood_lead_exposures_and_eliminate_associated_health_impactspresidents_508.pdf.
16. U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Lead (Final 
Report, June 2013). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/075F, 
2013. https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-lead.
17. U.S. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/73-FR-21692.
18. HUD, EPA. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based 
Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996) (FRL-5347-9). https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-9064.
19. U.S. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in 
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal 
Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). https://

[[Page 37818]]

www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-45778.
20. HUD. Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of 
Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and 
Housing Receiving Federal Assistance; Response to Elevated Blood 
Lead Levels; Final Rule. Federal Register (82 FR 4151, January 13, 
2017) (FR-5816-F-02). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/13/2017-00261/requirements-for-notification-evaluation-and-reduction-of-lead-based-paint-hazards-in-federally.
21. U.S. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; 
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 30302, June 3, 1998) (FRL-
5791-9). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1998/06/03/98-14736/lead-identification-of-dangerous-levels-of-lead.
22. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the 
Definition of Lead-Based Paint; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (83 
FR 30889, July 2, 2018) (FRL-9976-04). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/02/2018-14094/review-of-the-dust-lead-hazard-standards-and-the-definition-of-lead-based-paint.
23. HUD, Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. Lead 
Hazard Control Clearance Survey. Final Report. October 2015. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/clearancesurvey_24oct15.pdf.
24. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the 
Definition of Lead-Based Paint RIN 2070-AJ82 Response to Comment. 
June 2019. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0571.
25. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Technical 
Support Document for Residential Dust-lead Hazard Standards 
Rulemaking Approach taken to Estimate Blood Lead Levels and Effects 
from Exposures to Dust-lead. June 2019.
26. HUD. Revised Dust-Lead Action Levels for Risk Assessment and 
Clearance; Clearance of Porch Floors. Policy Guidance 2017-01 Rev 1. 
February 16, 2017. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/LEADDUSTLEVELS_REV1.pdf.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that 
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket. The Agency prepared 
an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action, which is available in the docket (Ref. 8).

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). Details on the estimated costs 
of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential 
costs and benefits associated with this action (Ref. 8).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not directly impose an information collection 
burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under 24 CFR part 35, 
subpart A, and 40 CFR 745, subpart F, sellers and lessors must already 
provide purchasers or lessees any available records or reports 
``pertaining to'' LBP, LBP hazards and/or any lead hazard evaluative 
reports available to the seller or lessor. Accordingly, a seller or 
lessor must disclose any reports showing dust-lead levels, regardless 
of the value. Thus, this action would not result in additional 
disclosures. Because there are no new information collection 
requirements to consider under the proposed rule, or any changes to the 
existing requirements that might impact existing ICR burden estimates, 
additional OMB review and approval under the PRA is not necessary.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small businesses subject to the requirements of 
this action are abatement firms that may incur costs associated with 
additional cleaning and sealing in houses where a post-abatement 
loading is between the current DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and the proposed DLCL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills.
    EPA's Economic Analysis (Ref. 8) presents low and high scenarios 
for the number of housing units where a child with a blood lead level 
that equals or exceeds a Federal or state trigger value lives. For the 
low scenario, environmental investigations are assumed to be conducted 
when a child's blood lead level equals or exceeds the trigger value set 
by that child's state. These values vary from 5 [mu]g/dL to 25 [mu]g/
dL, depending on the state. For the high scenario, environmental 
investigations are assumed to be conducted when a child's blood lead 
level equals or exceeds the CDC's reference level of 5 [mu]g/dL. The 
two scenarios function as bounding estimates, and a more realistic 
assessment of the number of environmental investigations is that they 
are between the high and low scenarios. The low and high scenarios for 
the number of environmental investigations affect the estimated number 
of small business that might incur costs for cleaning and additional 
dust wipe testing if EPA promulgates the clearance levels in this 
proposed rule.
    The Agency has determined that this rule may impact approximately 0 
to 10,200 small abatement firms, with 0 to 9,000 having cost impacts 
less than 1% of revenues, 0 to 1,000 having impacts between 1% and 3%, 
and 0 to 250 having impacts greater than 3% of revenues. Details of the 
analysis are presented in the EA, which is available in the docket 
(Ref. 8).
    In addition to the use of the high scenario, the analysis makes a 
series of other assumptions that are likely to lead to an overestimate 
of small entity impacts. In order to estimate the potential impacts of 
the rule, EPA assumed that an environmental investigation occurs 
whenever a child's blood lead level is found to equal or exceed a 
Federal or state trigger value; that the environmental investigation 
always includes dust wipe testing of the child's home; and that a 
clean-up occurs whenever the environmental investigation indicates that 
dust-lead loadings exceed a hazard standard. Neither the DLCL nor the 
other provisions of EPA's LBP activities regulations require property 
owners to evaluate their properties for the presence of dust-lead 
hazards, or to take action to address the hazards if dust-lead hazards 
are identified.
    The analysis also assumes that in all cases where a dust-lead 
hazard is identified, the property owner performs at least one baseline 
abatement activity. This likely overestimates costs because some events 
may only involve interim controls, and EPA does not require clearance 
testing for such events.
    Finally, the analysis assumes that in all cases the costs are borne 
entirely by the lead paint abatement firm (as opposed to being passed 
through to the property owner). However, it is more likely that some, 
or perhaps even most, of these costs will be passed on to the property 
owners.

[[Page 37819]]

    In light of these conservative assumptions, the small entity 
impacts analysis likely overstates the number of small businesses with 
large impacts.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The total estimated 
annual cost of the proposed rule is $0 to 7 million to $0 to 35 million 
per year (Ref. 8), which does not exceed the inflation-adjusted 
unfunded mandate threshold of $156 million.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 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. States 
that have authorized LBP Activities programs must demonstrate that they 
have DLCL at least as protective as the levels at 40 CFR 745.227. 
However, authorized States are under no obligation to continue to 
administer the LBP Activities program, and if they do not wish to adopt 
the new DLCL they can relinquish their authorization. In the absence of 
a State authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

G. 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). Federally 
recognized tribes that have authorized LBP Activities programs must 
demonstrate that they have DLCL at least as protective as the clearance 
level at 40 CFR 745.227. However, these authorized tribes are under no 
obligation to continue to administer the LBP Activities program, and if 
they do not wish to adopt the new DLCL they can relinquish their 
authorization. In the absence of a tribal authorization, EPA will 
administer these requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is economically significant as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, and because the environmental health or safety 
risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on 
children (Ref. 4).
    The primary purpose of this rule is to clear abatements to a level 
that can reliably, effectively and safely eliminate LBP hazards in 
target housing, including target housing where children reside, and 
COFs. EPA's analysis indicates that there will be approximately 10,500 
to 51,000 children per year affected by the rule (Ref. 8).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA 
section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Abatement, Child-occupied facility, 
Clearance levels, Hazardous substances, Lead, Lead poisoning, Lead-
based paint, Target housing.

    Dated: June 17, 2020.
Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R, be 
amended as follows:

PART 745--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

0
2. Amend Sec.  745.223 by revising the definition for ``Clearance 
levels'' to read as follows:


Sec.  745.223  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Clearance levels are values that indicate the amount of lead in 
dust on a surface following completion of an abatement activity. To 
achieve clearance when dust sampling is required, values below these 
levels must be achieved.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  745.227 by revising paragraph (e)(8)(viii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  745.227  Work practice standards for conducting lead-based paint 
activities: Target housing and child-occupied facilities.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (viii) The clearance levels for lead in dust are 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for window troughs.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-13582 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P